Talk:City-state/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gibraltar

Does Gibraltar qualify as a city-state? Chanheigeorge 04:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

No not really —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.18.56 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 April 2006

British overseas territory under sovereignty of UK Dainamo 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Zanzibar no city state

Zanzibar was no city state in the age of colonialism. It was the capital of an independent sultanate and regional power in the 19. century, and capital of a British Protectorate until independence 1964. --Kipala 08:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What about San Marino?

San Marino is pretty much a city state isn't it? Looks like it was forgotten here.

San Marino extends beyond a single urbanized area with distinct agricultural regions Dainamo 00:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't classical city-states generally include surrounding agricultural regions, though? For example, classical Athens eventually ruled the entire peninsula of Attica. 74.224.167.240 (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, San Marino hardly extends beyond an urbanized area. Its a city and its immediate surroundings...its a city-state.141.166.228.155 (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest that besides San Marino: Liechtenstein (Vaduz) and Andorra are also city states, since what has been said about San Marino hear is equally applicable to them. It could also be said of Nauru I suppose but this is more debatable since the country isn't so much built around Yaren, its unoffical capital, as, for example, Singaopre is built around Singapore City. 141.166.229.164 (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not only is Vaduz not the only city in Liechtenstein, it's not even the largest. Nearby Schaan has a larger population by several hundred. Similarly Andorra extends far beyond Andorra La Vella (notably Encamp) and cannot be considered a city-state. Likewise, San Marino has another notable city Serravalle. In conclusion, none of these three can truly be considered a city-state as they all have clearly distinguishable cities from their capitals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.13.23 (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a short entry for San Marino:

San Marino

San Marino, the third smallest state in Europe, is an independent [exclave]] surrounded by Italy. The capital, and center of government, is the City of San Marino, located on the western slopes of Monte Titano. Geographically, the entire country is approximately the size of Syracuse, New York.

San Marino is the oldest constitutional republic in the world, having been founded on 3 September 301 by Marinus of Rab, a Christian stonemason fleeing the religious persecution of Roman Emperor Diocletian. San Marino's constitution, dating back to 1600, is the world's oldest written constitution still in effect.

Please fell free to comment or suggest additions. The second paragraph is largely copied from the intro for the San Marino article. I might write short blurbs for Andorra and Liechtenstein at a later date but will leave that for now. 141.166.229.164 (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we must keep a distinction between "city-state" and "micro-state". In this sense a city-state is a state where the state borders and the municipal borders are coextensive. This is the case in Singapore, Monaco, Berlin or Hamburg (both Germany), but certainly not in San Marino, Andorra or Liechtenstein. San Marino has nine municipalities (among them one city), Andorra seven parishes, and Liechtenstein eleven municipalities. And trust me, I visited rural San Marino, it's certainly not urban. And the supposed "city-state" Bremen (Germany) consists of even two cities! 89.14.39.179 (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why the section on San Marino tries to give the reader an impression of the size of a (likely) unfamiliar region, by comparing it to another region that the reader is probably only marginally more likely to be familiar with? Inhabitants of Syracuse probably say "ahhh...I see" when they read it, but even most people from the U.S. and certainly virtually anyone from the rest of the whole world probably not so much. 165.228.239.237 (talk)MrShrike —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC).

Merger proposal

Citistates was recently added with content lifted from a source, and grossly undeveloped. The content would overlap with this article extensively.--Huaiwei 03:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

City-states vs. citistates

I'm not totally sure what a "citistate" is, and I may have butchered the concept in my re-write; it also probably needs some sort of cite or sourcing. It doesn't seem to be the same thing as a "city-state" in the sense of a classical Greek polis or a comparable entity (the city-states of Renaissance Italy or the city-states of the ancient Mayans). At any rate, discussions of Athens and Sparta--which are what spring to mind when one hears the term "city-state"--don't really have anything to do with "city regions" and "relocated urban business" and other modern buzzwords. 139.76.128.71 02:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Singapore, Monaco and Vatican City: cited as "arguably remain autonomous city-states" (in version as of 2 August 2007, 0240h)

I'm not sure that these countries' autonomy can be disputed. So why "arguably"? Does anyone have facts to back this claim that their sovereignty is controversial? I'm only fully sure of Singapore's independence so I do not want to make changes yet.Singyouranthem 13:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not involved in working on this article, but that change seems sensible to me as well - I can't think of any sense in which it is arguable that they are cities or that they are states.

--Tbook 18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's what's arguable is not their sovereignty but the fact that they still operate as city-states - Monaco and the Vatican City are both very much interdependent on Italy and France, respectively Brianski (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sovereignty is pretty easy to identify, and is a straight-forward concept. Interdependence isn't (I think you mean "dependent" - interdependent suggests France relies on Monaco just as Monaco relies on France), and has nothing to do with either parties being cities, or states. Kransky (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Berlin?

During the Cold War, Berlin wasn't part of either German state, but a separate territory administered by the Allied countries. --67.101.223.69 (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Can you provide some facts to back that up? As I recall it, West Berlin was an exclave of West Germany, and East Berlin was clearly a part of East Germany. Brianski (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

At the end of World War II, Germany and Austria were divided into four occupied sectors - one American, one French, one British, and one Soviet. Berlin and Vienna were also divided into four occupied sectors. At the insistance of President Truman, Austria and Vienna were de-occupied relatively quickly after the war (since it was not Austria's fault that Germany forcibly annexed it in 1938). It is a question for debate whether the Soviets would or would not have agreed to a reunified Germany in 1949. In any case, France, UK and the US decided to join their three sections together as the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). The Soviets having been left out of the deal (they said) reacted by created the German Democratic Republic (GDR). They then claimed that, as all of Berlin was surrounded by the GDR, it was now the property of the GDR and the Americans, British and French should leave. When they refused, the Soviets imposed a blocade. Washington, London and Paris responded with the Berlin Airlift. East Berlin was undoubtedly the capital of the GDR. West Berlin, however, was never formally incorporated into the FRG. Residents of West Berlin could come and go to and from West Germany as German citizens, but it was formally an international city.

But all of this historical information is utterly irrelevant. In contemporary Germany, the cities of Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg have the status of sovereign states within the German confederacy.

209.244.43.18 (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Can you provide some facts to back that up? As I recall it, West Berlin was an exclave of West Germany, and East Berlin was clearly a part of East Germany.. Sorry Brianski, but that is absolutely common knowledge and hardly requires any backup. You're right of course that East Berlin was de facto an integral part of East Germany (even the capital), and West Berlin was tightly integrated with West Germany, but the legal/political status was quite different. East Germany didn't honor this status at all (backed by the USSR), whereas West Germany did honor it. Most significantly, West Berliners weren't drafted into the Bundeswehr, because they weren't officially part of West Germany. They weren't allowed to directly vote in the West German elections, either; instead, the city's parliament sent delegates to the central parliament in Bonn. West German airlines couldn't fly to Berlin either, all air traffic between West Germany and West Berlin was carried out by the airlines of the occupying powers. Instead of "Deutsche Bundespost", stamps were labeled "Deutsche Bundespost Berlin" in West Berlin. So there can be really no discussion. However, I agree that all this is largely irrelevant to this article. --kate theobaldy (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Singapore still has a significant portion of its territory unurbanised"?

I thought Singapore was almost 100% urban. The whole place is a concrete jungle --Iamanigeeit (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. About 13% of Singapore is unurbanised. See 'land use' under Geography of Singapore. Kransky (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Or just look at google earth. You don't exactly see all of Singapore covered in grey.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

more states

Today, Singapore, Monaco and the Vatican City are the only sovereign states which bear any resemblance to the classical definition of a city-state

Someone mentioned San Marino above, but what about Andorra and Liechtenstein? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.97.91 (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The definition of a "city-state" isn't "a state the size of a city", but "a city that is an independent state". Andorra and Liechtenstein are not cities, i.e. a coherent urban agglomeration, and AFAIK the same can be said about San Marino. --kate theobaldy (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Berlin / Gibraltar

The article states that: Several sovereign countries have self-governing areas that are delineated around cities, such as Berlin in Germany, Macau and Hong Kong in China, the District of Columbia in the United States, the Brazilian Federal District in Brazil, the Mexican Federal District in Mexico, and Gibraltar. This enumeration isn't strictly wrong, but highly misleading. Gibraltar isn't generally considered as a city, and neither is it a self-governing area within a larger independent state. It is a dependent British overseas territory. So the sentence is dead wrong about Gibraltar, and Berlin is another odd one out. The other examples (Washington DC, Federal Districts in Brazil and Mexico, the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau) all have some special status that puts them outside the regular administrative structure of the respective nation states. In other words, Washington DC is not a regular state of the USA. It enjoys a special status as the capital, just like Brasilia, Mexico City, or Canberra, Australia. The same can't be said about Berlin - Berlin is a regular German state like any other, except that its boundaries coincide with that of the city of Berlin. Unlike the article implies, Berlin does not have any special position due to its status as the capital. It is also not the only city-state among the states of the German federation - Bremen and Hamburg are genuine, traditional city-states, whereas Berlin had never been a city state until the division of Germany made West Berlin a de-facto city-state. Interestingly, when Berlin became capital of Germany, it was also supposed to be merged with the surrounding state of Brandenburg. Although this project was rejected in a referendum, it shows that Berlin's city-state status within Germany has nothing to do with it being the seat of government - unlike Washington, Mexico, Brasilia or Canberra. Finally, it is at least dubious to mention those along with Macau and Hong Kong which are city-states for quite different reasons. I'm going to modify this accordingly. --kate theobaldy (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong word to use?

"third most densely populated country in the world" I think that this phrase for the Singapore section is a little wrong, for the first place in the world for population density is Macau SAR, and i am under the impression that it is not a country. So I think that "third most densely populated territory in the world" would be a better description. Assassin3577 (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Singapore is a country, Macau is not. Perhaps you are trying to compare apples and oranges.

POV Violation?

"Historically,the congress has largely ignored the plight of the D.C. resident. Despite prosperity and budget surpluses in the late 1990s and early 2000s, during the time of President Clinton, the city now faces daunting urban renewal, housing, public health and public education challenges."

President Clinton left office no later than noon on January 20, 2001, so this paragraph is not only NPOV, but factually wrong. The city is NOT facing "daunting urban renewal, housing, public health...challenges" and Mayor Fenty, of whom I don't particularly approve, is aggressively attacking the problems in the public education system.

"Historically,the congress has largely ignored the plight of the D.C. resident." It could be argued that the city was better off when Congress ran it directly, before Home Rule. Certainly the murder rate was lower. I know the discussion page is about the article, not the subject of the article, but facts are stubborn things, and facts matter. Anyway, the paragraph I cited cites no sources. I'm calling "non-encyclopedic" on this one. Ooooh! Grab your pocket protectors!!!!

Gaza - City State?

Does the Gaza Strip qualify as a city state? It is one city, and a small surrounding area under the influence of the main city, with a sovereign government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.0.177 (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

its not sovereign, but yes its a city state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How would it qualify when it is actually part of a larger entity which includes the West Bank? Please note that city-states are not defined by size alone.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article

is not a sentence:

"A city-state as in the city-states of ancient Greece (such as Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and Corinth), the Phoenician cities of Canaan (such as Tyre and Sidon), the Sumerian cities of Mesopotamia (such as Babylon and Ur), the Mayans of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (including sites such as Chichen Itza and El Mirador), the central Asian cities along the Silk Road (which includes Samarkand and Bukhara), or the city-states of Northern Italy (especially Florence and Venice)."

This is pretty awful. It clearly needs to be changed somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.67.46 (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

City of London

"not commonly" considered a city state? Has anyone considered it so? MikeHobday (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The section on federally-administered cities

The section on federally-administered cities needs to be clarified somehow. For instance, Ottawa is a part of the province of Toronto (see for instance the article on the National Capital Region in Canada where it is says "The National Capital Region is not a separate political jurisdiction") and is therefore not federally-administered. I'm not Canadian, so I have no idea if there's any justification for inclusion here (perhaps it is akin to an autonomous city-state like Hong Kong in China, if China were a province of Canada; then it would be somewhat justified).

Dissimilarly, due to a quirk in Australian cities (we Australians think it's normal and this results in a number of dangerous myths which would be best solved by acting as independently as we are, instead of assuming what happens in America or Europe ought to happen in Australia—but this is a rant for another time and another place), Canberra has no government at all and is in no sense "federally administered". It is governed by the Australian Capital Territory, which is a federal territory, aye, but has essentially comparable status to the states. The Commonwealth (i.e. federal) Government can over-rule the ACT government if they want and can revoke the ACT government's ability to govern itself, but have no more say in how it's run day-to-day than they have in how Victoria or Tasmania are run. Contrast this to federally-administered territories in Australia like Christmas Island, which is governed by the Attorney-General's department even though it has a shire council (i.e. government of the equivalent level as a city normally has in Australia). Contrast this also to the federally-administered Washington DC, which needs Congressional approval of its budget and any legislation that is passed. (It might be insightful to compare the ACT's current situation with that of the Commonwealth's situation during the first few decades of federation, where legislation could be passed by the Commonwealth Parliament and approved by the Commonwealth Governor-General (who was an agent of the Imperial Government), but overruled by the Queen on the advice of the Imperial Government. In any case the same situation applied in the Australian states until 1986. No-one would've described the Australian Commonwealth or states as imperially-administered, but rather as self-governing components of the British Empire. Likewise, the ACT is a self-governing component of the Australian federation, but it has a different constitutional status than the states.)

Also, Hong Kong and Macau are in no way comparable to the City of London. Hong Kong and Macau are often members of international organisations, independently of China. That would never happen for the City of London whose status is merely a domestic matter. Hong Kong and Macau should be listed somewhere in between sovereign city-states and "domestically autonomous" city-states.

I'm not sure whether there's a point in including federally-administered cities. In fact, technically a federally-administered city is something of an anti-city-state. Instead of having a comparative autonomy, they have a comparative dependence. I might suggest having a list of cities with comparative independence/autonomy, regardless of constitutional status, which would list Canberra alongside Berlin. In any case, the current system might be pedantically accurate, but it doesn't really illustrate the systems that are out there very well.

In other words, you would have three lists:

• Sovereign city-states, which have the status of a country
• Non-sovereign city-states, which have greater autonomy than other entities in the country, or than is usually expected for components of a country (Hong Kong & Macau)
• Non-sovereign city-states, which have comparable autonomy to other entities in the country (German city-states, Canberra)
• Non-sovereign cities, which have less automony than other entities in the country?? (Washington DC)

Would anyone object to such a system?

—Felix the Cassowary 17:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC; signed at 2:05, 26 August 2009, UTC)

I've removed some cities which fail to classify under their grouping (Canberra, Ottawa), or which clearly fail to be accurately described as "city-states" (Ottawa, London). Canberra might still be appropriate for inclusion on the list under another heading. Ottawa and London clearly aren't appropriate at all. —Felix the Cassowary 15:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Section on definition of city states

The definition of city states to consist of only one single municipality being simultaneously a state is too narrow and does not reflect the usage in states like Germany and Switzerland, which often use the term city states referring to states like the Canton of Basle city (190,000 inh.) or the city state of Bremen (670,000 inh.). Both are clearly dominated by the one name-giving city, however consist of more than that city (Canton Basel City: 2 further suburban municipalities Riehen (20,000 inh.) and Bettingen (1,200 inh.); Bremen state: city of Bremerhaven (120,000 inh.). Even the Canton of Geneva (440,000), with Geneva having 190,000 inh. and the rest of the canton's population spread over 45 municipalities is mostly considered a city state, due to the widely urban or suburban character of the municipalities in a relatively small area. Bremen consisted until 1939 of even more than two cities, mostly suburban municipalities of Bremen, then incorporated. But Bremen being always the dominant city. Hamburg consisted until 1938 of one name-giving city and other much smaller cities and municipalities, making up its suburbia. Nobody would take this as reason to consider Hamburg before 1938 else then being a city state. The same is also true for former city state of Lübeck (until 1937) and the former city state of Frankfurt upon Main (until 1866). The narrowness of the definition is awkward for the general usage of the term referring to these former or still existing states. Of course one could mention for each city state, if - and since when - it consisted of only one city. The same is also true for other historical examples like the Free City of Danzig (Napoleonic) and the Free City of Danzig (1920-1939), Free Territory of Trieste etc. An the republics of Venezia, Genova, Siena, Florence etc. also consisted of more municipalities, all dominated by one name-giving city. The same is presumably also true for ancient city states like Athens etc. The definition of city state here used is also contradictory to the usage of the term city state in relation to the ancient city states. Best wishes Ulf Heinsohn Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

More on definition

Most city states as conceived here were decisive for designing modern civic life with - being usually republics - a strong particaption of citizens, historically mostly not including all inhabitants, in city government. Democracy, republicanism, civic culture and welfare institutions are achievements - at least in Europe and the historical Near Eact - stemming from or further developed in these city states with rather only symbolic or even without monarchic dominance. See Richard Pipes (Property & Freedom, esp. section on free cities) and Fernand Braudel's concept of the Bell Jarr, referring much to the special role of city states as areas, distinctly constituted than their surrounding neighbours. Most of the historical research on cities and partly the sociological or economic research deal with these peculiarities of city-states and other semi- or quasi free cities. Best wishes Ulf Heinsohn Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The section on city states in recent history

Referring to the afore-mentioned I suggest to mention again the cities deleted in the section on recent history, giving more details about their constitution as comprising only one city or more additionally municipalities and cities. E.g. West Berlin comprised only one city and had technically been a city state with the special overlordship of the Western Allies, its mentioning is now deleted.

Best wishes Ulf Heinsohn Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

definition

K, the opening paragraph needs a touchup imo. Using republican in the description of a city state is not accurate currently(vatican city) or historically(sparta, also every city state that had a tyrany at one point).--Wilson (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

London/Greater London/City of London/City of Westminster

Would these be considered to be "city-states"? I'd previously only thought of countries like Singapore or Vatican City as being "city-states" but this article seems to suggest that other cities could be considered to be so. Seeing as Greater London has its own government separate to that of the surrounding English counties, could it be considered a city-state? Obviously there's the whole confusion over just how much of a city "London" actually is, seeing as it's made up of distinct fully-fledged towns unlike Birmingham or Manchester. Gammondog (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Canberra

Why don't you people mention the Australian Capital Territory?

Tell me why, tell me why.

TELL ME WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.114.44 (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the ACT is not a country. --GenericBob (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Historical city-states

There seem to be other recent historical city-states: Free City of Danzig (1920-1939), Free State of Fiume (1920-1924), International Zone of Tangier (1923-1956). And non-European historical ones, see e.g. A comparative study of thirty city-state cultures. And, of course, the Arabian pre-islamic city-states. --Pylambert (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Honduras

http://www.libremercado.com/2011-09-04/honduras-pone-en-marcha-el-hong-kong-del-siglo-xxi-1276434250/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.195.112.153 (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Kuwait

What about Kuwait? According to the Wikipedia artices Metropolitan Kuwait City has a population of 2,380,000, and the whole country has a population 3,566,437. A city state can have territory outside the city, most of the Italian city states did in order to supply their food needs. The criteria is that the majority of the population, economy and political power is in just one city. I think Kuwait satisfies this requirement. If nobody objects, I will add Kuwait. TiffaF (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

But "metropolitan area" is different from "city". You would also need a reliable reference. --ELEKHH^T 05:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Malta and other

Discussion in the Malta page refers. In addition, the claim that "the Parliament of Malta has yet to officially announce Malta as a city-state" is a case of looking into a crystal ball. The Parliament of Malta has already designated cities, localities and hamlets and why it (or any other legislature for that matter) should declare the country a city state is mere speculation.

Demdem (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Also Buenos Aires, Canberra (see above), Brussels, Brasília, Geneva, Delhi, Mexico City and some other in the article. Generally, only Monaco (theoretically, see Monte Carlo), Singapore and Vatican is city-state. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

So first things first: are we agreed that the point about the Parliament of Malta is speculation?

Demdem (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

After inviting citations for the claim that Malta is a city-state and none were forthcoming, this unfounded (and evidently wrong) claim has been deleted. See also discussion in the Malta article.

Demdem (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thread gets re-opened over because a re-wording is supposed to have introduced something new.

So let's go through all the points:

(a) "city" is not synonymous with "urban agglomeration" (the latter might actually cross national borders as, for example, Lille-Kortrijk).

(b) There are three inhabited islands in Malta, the largest being also called "Malta". The island is a single urban agglomeration (not city) often nominally referred to as "Valletta". But there is a second, smaller agglomeration - Gozo - equally recognised for statistical purposes.

(c) Then there's the definition at the beginning of this article: "A city-state is an independent or autonomous entity whose territory consists of a city which is not administered as a part of another local government" (emphasis added). Malta does not satisfy this condition.

(d) The "new" piece of information is that the Maltese coat of arms bears a castle for a crown said to symbolise a city-state. This is a heraldic matter not a factual statement.

Demdem (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: a) Monaco is city? Not, Monte Carlo is town and capital of Monaco. But, Monaco is city-state. PS. also cities are separated by a border, for example: (Polish) Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn or (Polish) Zgorzelec and (German) Gorlitz etc. This is not arguments, this are not irrelevant.

Re b) Not only "urban agglomeration", but Urban Zone and "urban area". Also Gozo island is urban zone according to Eurostat.

Re c) This text does not even have sources. Monaco also does not comply conditions. Similarly, below text "Today there are only a handful of cities that exercise authority akin to a sub-regional state, and even fewer that are sovereign states in their own right" (probably against you?).

Re d) This is important, also today.

Subtropical-man (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm no "Monaco" expert so if Monaco should be included here is a matter you should pick up with someone else in the know. Quite simply, with the exception of the herladic description of Malta's coat-of-arms none of your sources refer to Malta as a "city-state" (thankfully, you seem to have realised that this is not the same thing as "urban agglomeration" or "Urban Zone" which could be statistical or georgaphical categories, not political as is "city state").

As to your only "source", I'd say a heraldic description would need some more substantiation to stand, don't you?

Demdem (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I quote a point made in this talk page in connection with the discussion on San Marino on what makes a city-state and what doesn't:

I'm sorry, but we must keep a distinction between "city-state" and "micro-state". In this sense a city-state is a state where the state borders and the municipal borders are coextensive. This is the case in Singapore, Monaco, Berlin or Hamburg (both Germany), but certainly not in San Marino, Andorra or Liechtenstein. San Marino has nine municipalities (among them one city), Andorra seven parishes, and Liechtenstein eleven municipalities. And trust me, I visited rural San Marino, it's certainly not urban. And the supposed "city-state" Bremen (Germany) consists of even two cities! 89.14.39.179 (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

For comparison, Malta has no less than 68 municipial divisions.

Demdem (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

1) Monaco and Singapore exist in the article. Why? Monte Carlo is town and capital of Monaco. Singapore has some towns [1]. Generally, exist only one city-states: Vatican-City 2) Article does not have sources (how do you know what has to be city-state)?

I think, the article should be divided into three sections - section 1: Vatican-City; section 2: Non-sovereign city-states, for example Moscow, Canberra; section 3: places that could be considered as city-state in terms of formal, geographical, statistical, demographical etc, for example Monaco. PS. Malta has divisions? also Singapore, Monaco and other. So what? It can be seen as districts of city-state. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please resolve this discussion before making further reverts on the article. I've protected this page for three days to avoid blocking two editors per a request at WP:ANEW. If the discussion resolves before then, please let me know or put in a request at WP:RFPP. Do not continue blind reverts at the expiration of this protection. Kuru (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Once more, I kindly ask you not to throw at me analogies about other city states (although do let me note that Monaco's and Singapore's territorial sub-divisions are administrative, not political, unlike Malta's local councils). I just ask for a reference to Malta as a city state apart from one heraldic description.

As has been done in other threads "city state" is not to be confused with "microstate" and unlike "urban agglomeration" and "urban zone" is a political category. So, no, I don't think this article should include considerations in "terms of formal, geographical, statistical, demographical", there's other articles and terms for that.

Demdem (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really. 1) If the name of "city-state" is the only concept of political, so we should take into account only these places, which are in the statute, constitution or laws to determine "city-state". 2) Where are the sources that the name of "city-stare" refers to what you write (ie only the political aspect, and not formal, geographical, statistical or demographical)? Subtropical-man (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(1) Precisely. If the constitutional law of a state covers the same area of jurisdiction as the constitutional law of a city then that's a city state. Anything else would be either mere speculation or confounding with other, fundamentally and conceptually different terms (urban agglomeration, urban zone, community, etc.).

(2) Here: "A state is an organized political community, living under a government" (and that's sourced).

Finally, since you seem quite concerned by sources, could you please quote one reliable source saying that Malta is a city state other than what is stated in an heraldic description of the Maltese coat-of-arms?

Demdem (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ad 1: "that's a city state"? This is your OR. Please indicate the source that it is "city-state".

Ad 2: Your link (State (polity)) concerns state. I asked for the sources concerns "city-state".

Finally: Where are the sources that the name of "city-stare" refers to what you write (ie only the political aspect, and not formal, geographical, statistical or demographical)? Subtropical-man (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Odd that you should insist on dismissing the sourced political definition of "state" as if it were completely unrelated to "city-state" (like black dogs were conceptually completely unrelated to dogs). But if it is down to this I can equally say that your claims are unsourced and that your extension of the concept of "city state" beyond the political is equally OR. Demdem (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

So we are at a standstill. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't be. You see, according to WP:BURDEN "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". So the onus is upon you to provide a reliable source why Malta should be considered a city-state other than a heraldic reference (to which, by the way, there's an alternative explanation by jurist and historian Giovanni Bonello drawing paralells with the mural crowns on the coat-of-arms of the Republic of Austria and the First Spanish Republic, both definitely not city-states).

Demdem (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

1) My source is reliable, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. 2) "you to provide a reliable source why Malta should be considered a city-state other than a heraldic reference" - why? Because you think so? I am a different opinion. 3) "by the way, there's an alternative explanation (...) by Giovanni Bonello" - alternative explanation? This is not consistent with the principles of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not to analyze something, Wikipedia shows the text and the source. Just enough. You has alternative explanation? OK, do study (outside Wikipedia), publish work, get ISBN or ISSN or similarly, and add "alternative explanation" to Wikipedia with the source. Respect the rules of Wikipedia, including Wikipedia:No original research. Subtropical-man (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a very simple reason why you should provide sources other than a heraldic reference in support of your opinion that Malta is a city-state: Because "city-state" is not a heraldic concept. To determine whether a country is a city-state, it's immaterial what its coat of arms looks like. In Malta's case, it's simple: The country has established local councils with a considerable degree of self-determination (indeed, it is under an obligation to do so - Malta is a party to the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which mandates that there must be effective local governance - without acceding to this instrument, it could not have joined the EU). It's spread over two inhabited islands with not only a geographical, but also an administratrive border in between. Surely that speaks strongly against the notion that Malta is a city-state. SchnitteUK (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

How about we work at some compromose wording? I suggest:

The Maltese coat-of-arms bears a mural crown described as "representing the fortifications of Malta and denoting a City State"<"The emblem of Malta", Department of Information>. However, it has been noted that the mural crown was also included in the coats-of-arms of the Republic of Austria and the First Spanish Republic <Giovanni Bonello, "Malta's three national emblems since Independence: what's behind them?">. In addition, one has to keep in mind that Malta is divided into 68 municipalities and, for statistical and demographic purposes, is considered to be composed of two Larger Urban Zones nominally referred to as "Valletta" and "Gozo". <Eurostat, Malta> <Demographia World Urban Areas>

What do you think?

Demdem (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

a good compromise, although the text about the urban zone might be (slightly) to redraft. But, ok. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This Daily Mail article [2](not what i'd consider a reliable source) refers to Malta as a city state. Eopsid (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Everyone who has ever been on Malta knows that it is not a city-state, despite the fact that the entire country is only half the size of Singapore. There are lots of other villages on the two(!) main islands of Malta. Typically, city-states have the same name as their (main) city/capital (is that another definition perhaps?) Malta's capital is Valletta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbakels (talk • contribs) 13:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've moved content on Malta to the "See also" section. It is odd to have the intro say that there are three sovereign city-states in the world today and then list four (and, in any case, Malta isn't a city state by any technical definition just some spurious references here and there).

Demdem (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I backed this edition. There is no consensus to remove, split or move this sub-section. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Do you notice that in the intro it is said "only three independent, sovereign city-states exist: Monaco, Singapore, and Vatican City" and then the section on sovereign city-states lists these three countries and Malta? What consensus is expected here? That four is not equal to three?

Demdem (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

in the intro, you can change from three to four. And also, where is sources for this sentence? Where is sources for "only three" and "only Monaco, Singapore, and Vatican City"? I add {fact} to this. Subtropical-man (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What makes Malta a city state that can not be applied to San Marino or Luxembourg? Having a mural crown on the coat of arms is not indicative of being a city state.Theothor32 (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

San Marino?

The header states this: Today, only three independent, sovereign city-states exist: Monaco, Singapore, and Vatican City.
However, San Marino's section later in the article has this: San Marino is one of the world’s oldest republics and the only surviving Italian city-state.
I can't see how both of these statements could be right. Was San Marino a single city before, as it seems it isn't nowadays? 82.141.67.203 (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Unitary authorities

The City of London is a unitary authority, not a city state, as it exists within the state of Britain. The problem is with the overly broad definition in the lede, which allows this example. In the short term, I propose a rv of "City of London". After discussion, a tightening of the lede definition. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, no objections: implementing phase one. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This keeps coming back. Why the confusion between a Unitary authority and a City state, please? Is there anything we can do to clarify some contributors' evident muddle? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm of the understanding that the City is a Corporation in legal terms. I thought this is why the Monarch must require the authorisation of the aldermen in order to enter the square mile? 149.241.189.78 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

San Marino

Why is San Marino not on this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magamma (talk • contribs) 10:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Republic of San Marino has nine municipalities, including the City of San Marino. The largest municipality is Dogana. --Old Moonraker (talk)

Thanks for your comment, but still we should look towards the geographical definitions of what is a city. As far as I know, San Marino lives up to the standards of a city state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magamma (talk • contribs) 14:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"As far as I know" doesn't satisfy the WP:V policy. Find a WP:RS that tells us that SM is a city-state, then bring it back for another look. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

GREAT! Finally someone participates. That is the way to activate people in this article. Next time, Old Moonraker, please participate a little earlier! Magamma

I am sorry for the six-day delay. By coincidence I was commenting on something with more than a two-year delay, as you wrote. This, my top-of-the-list project, hasn't had a birthday yet, so that's all right. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't be sorry; just be faster next time:-) Well, you find the difinition, or else Vatican and Monaco are gonna be deleted. Cheers, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magamma (talk • contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a matter of naming - Singapore is over ten times as large as San Marino and does not even cover all of the main island, let alone other islands that are part of Singaporean territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbakels (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I know, I am joining this discussion rather late, but I just want to throw in that the official tourism website of San Marino refers to the City of San Marino as the countries "third largest city" http://www.sanmarinosite.com/eng/sanmarino.html. I don't know exactly whether that disqualifies San Marino as a city-state, but it feels like it would. FagusNigra (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've worked for European political instituions for many years, and neither San Marino nor Malta have ever in my experience been referred to as city-states. San Marino is commonly referred to under the term micro-state however. Let us not confuse Micro-states with city-states. It's not just size, but style of governance, and within every organisation I've been employed, only three city-states are ever referred to as existing in the modern world, Vatican City, Monaco, and Singapore. Nor do San Marino or Malta refer to themselves as city-states. Grunners (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

'Other Potential City States' & Additional Fixes Needed

There has been quite a bit of debate on which states should be considered true 'sovereign city-states' and which are 'micro-states.' As a political scientist, I can see why this issue is frustrating - and why it's hard for any single position to 'win' - political scientists themselves don't agree on what constitutes a city-state vs. a micro-state (we don't agree on much, really...). I would agree with Singapore, Vatican City and Monaco. Singapore is typically used as the paradigmatic example of a modern city-state (much as Somalia has become the paradigmatic example of a failed state).

There are, however, a number of other micro-states that should be examined more closely for inclusion and for which I believe the case of considering them 'city-states' is quite a bit stronger than any such claim regarding Malta, the state around which so much debate has been focused.

Most prominent, in my opinion and in order, are the states of San Marino, Andorra and Liechtenstein. I know some colleagues who'd argue for Luxembourg to be included; Malta would be contentious and a few would go further and suggest Nauru as a city-state as well.

I am not invested enough in micro-managing (no pun intended) Wikipedia's determination of what constitutes a 'city-state' v. a 'micro-state' but if you look at both the geographic size and population size of the first three states I mention you'll see they are smaller - or proximate - in size to Monaco and Liechtenstein does function as a fully unitary state. There are reasons to debate each - and the other 3 mentioned (Luxembourg, Malta and Nauru) -- though I believe there are stronger cases for San Marino, Andorra and Liechtenstein.

I will say this: the 'literature' is NOT definitive, clear or in agreement on this topic. Some would find the topic moot; other social scientists will argue over definitions for years (literally) and if I had the time now I could find quotes from academic articles in peer-reviewed political science journals supporting ALL the above as city-states. Now, personally, I'd hesitate on Malta and possibly Luxembourg. I'd personally likely vote to consider San Marino, Andorra and Liechtenstein as city states and I'm up in the air on Nauru. Anyways, I wanted to renew debate over this topic and see if there are ways to accommodate competing views (perhaps keep the 'main 3' in the article as 'definitive examples' and highlight some of these others as 'debated'?).

Additionally, this article could be MUCH more developed - it would be great to see the right, knowledgeable people come together and really develop the history of the city-state concept and provide many more historical examples.

I've one other concern - but I'll address that with another section. Metacrias (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Luxemburg is not a city-state.

"Luxembourg (Listeni/ˈlʌksəmbɜrɡ/ luks-əm-burg), officially the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Luxembourgish: Groussherzogtum Lëtzebuerg, French: Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, German: Großherzogtum Luxemburg), is a landlocked country in Western Europe. It is bordered by Belgium to the west and north, Germany to the east, and France to the south. It comprises two principal regions: the Oesling in the north as part of the Ardennes massif, and the Gutland ("good country") in the south.[5] Luxembourg has a population of 524,853 (as of October 2012)[6] and an area of 2,586 square kilometres (998 sq mi), making it one of the smallest sovereign nations in Europe.[7]"

Also, Luxemburg is not even a microstate, as stated in this article. Here is the wikipedia article on microstates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.3.160 (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Gibraltar is not a autonomous city of a unitary state. Gibraltar and the UK are not part of the same state. Gibraltar is a dependent territory of a state. It's irrelevant as to whether the UK is unitary or federal. Gibraltar should be in it's own section, named something like: 'Cities which are dependent territories'. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Federally-Administered States" & "Cities that are component states of federations"

The distinction between the two of these is actually rather significant in terms of municipal politics - but I'm not sure how I see what either is doing in an article on city-states. Can someone defend the inclusion of these in this article? If so - someone, please develop these sections more and show how they tie into the broader concept of city-state otherwise I think we should delete them entirely from the article as I personally don't see these as being anything akin to a city-state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metacrias (talk • contribs) 11:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It is absurd that an article entitled "City-state" has sections called "Cities that are component states of federations" (including Buenos Aires, Brussels, Vienna, etc.) and "Federally administered cities" (including Canberra, Washington, Islamabad, etc.). Moreover, the section "Autonomous cities within unitary states" includes Greater London and Bangkok.

It has been over six months since deletion of these irrelevancies was proposed by Metacrias above, and no one has objected. I'm going to remove them shortly unless I see a quick objection. Loraof (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

non-sovereign city-states - reversion

Several (1000+) articles link to this definition. The current approach has its disadvantages (and is unsourced), but a wholesale removal of the "non-sovereign" section leaves a lot of those articles with a completely meaningless link. I have reverted the deletion for now for this reason. The lead makes it clear, that the article covers both definitions. Anyway, if this section is to be deleted, incoming links should be checked before the deletion. PS: a quick Google search indicates that "city-state" (or "city state") is in use in some English sources, books and dictionaries - it's reasonable to mention this alternative usage. GermanJoe (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Most English dictionaries define city-state as a sovereign state, see here and here, for example. The section titled "non-sovereign city-states" is completely unsourced and contradicts the prevailing definition. I've tagged the section as unsourced and original research, and will wait a few months to see if it's going to be fixed. By the way, I don't see any problem with incoming links, as the article will not be deleted, only the section. -Zanhe (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of the listed cities seem to be sourced in the lead (a strange approach). I have quoted the wider definition and added refs for it and some of the listed cities. Per WP:WEIGHT differing views and definitions should be mentioned, when reliable sources for them exist. Ref #7 is based on a symposium about city-states from Mr. Hansen and 28 other scholars in the field and certainly qualifies as reliable source. Admittedly more refs could still be added - I couldn't find Gibraltar, Ceuta and Melilla in ref #7. GermanJoe (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Modern "city-states"

The list of modern city states is dubious I think. I suppose Bahrain and Malta, and possibly even San Marino, are, despite lacking a highly populated urban center, similar due to their high population density; and conversely Qatar, Brunei and Kuwait are, despite lacking a high population density, similar due to their highly populated urban center. However, Andorra and Liechtenstein are neither. In comparison with other European states, they have a moderate population density. They don't even have a "city" in the true sense, and the vast majority of the population lives in small rural settlements. They are simply small states, and show more similarities to France than Singapore:

State	Population	Area	Population density	Population of largest city	Largest city as a % of overall population
France	66,616,416	640,679 km2	97/km2	10,516,110	16%
Andorra	85,458	468 km2	180/km2	22,256	26%
Liechtenstein	37,340	160 km2	227/km2	5,425	16%
United Kingdom	64,511,000	242,495 km2	256/km2	10,313,307	16%
Singapore	5,469,700	718.3 km2	7,615/km2	5,399,200	99%

Despite having sources, I don't think they should be mentioned.
Rob984 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

City of London as a Non-sovereign city-state

First off, i would like to comment on the user that put an edit warring notice on my talk page. That is an unbelievably aggressive and inflammatory action from a single revert. That accusation of edit warring is ludicrous! I only conducted one revert! One! It is beggars belief that User:Rob984 would do such a thing!

Secondly, i shall list a rationale for my point of view that the City of London (Corporation) is a Non-sovereign city-state along with Gibraltar, Ceuta and Melilla. -It is self-governing (to some extent) although being amalgamated among the Greater London Area. -It is a financial and economic hub of the United Kingdom, other city-states have economies composed of finance and trading. -It has its own legislature (although largely ceremonial) and Lord Mayor. Some laws cannot be passed with respect to the City of London.

It isn't sovereign to any extent, which is why i included it under the Non-sovereign section and although the city only has ~8,000 residents it still is a Financial Hub.

Comments are appreciated - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@RuleTheWiki: The City of London is not considered a non-sovereign city-state by reliable sources. It certainly is not considered to have self-government. It is a local authority district with an local authority similar to that of any other unitary authority in England. It has little additional powers (see City of London Corporation) related to policing and financial matters. It also has a unique ceremonial status, along with a unique structure, which is why it is not classified as a London Borough. It does not have "self-governance", "autonomy", whatever. This is a misconception, further propagated by non-reliable sources such as CGP Grey's YouTube video on the City (believe it or not, he makes a lot of mistakes in his videos). I don't mean to sound like an asshole (assume good faith and all), but really, any major claim like that needs a reliable source. Adding claims like that without a source, based on your own background knowledge, really isn't helpful for Wikipedia. There is a lot of commons misconceptions floating around. If you have specialist knowledge on a matter, then its permissible (though not in accordance with WP:NOR), but otherwise its actually counterproductive to building a high-quality encyclopedia—the aim of Wikipedia. Regarding edit warring, that is your one and only warning, I wont be reverting again. Rob984 (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

And yes, believe it or not, I would not edit war in fallacy. I make mistakes, add inaccurate information due to misunderstanding, but I don't edit war based on my own original research (and yes, one revert is edit warring). I respect the fact that anyone can remove uncited material from Wikipedia. I templated you in accordance with WP:3RR: "A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a {{uw-3rr}} template message on their user talk page". Rob984 (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Would Washington, D.C. technically be a city-state?

The District of Columbia is a federal district in the United States and Washington D.C. doesn't belong to any state.2605:6001:E7C4:1E00:216B:909E:7B91:6A4B (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If it were a state (ie it had self-governing powers) then it might be considered as a non-sovereign city-state... but in its present constitutional situation, it's got too limited 'state' characteristics. Sumorsǣte (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)