Jump to content

Talk:Dependent territory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

British Territories

I take it that the discussion below is now of less significance to the current form of the page which appears to exclude completely uninhabited places but not distinguish between others - I can't make it out from the history, but have I got that right?

On that basis can I make a some suggestions which should maybe wait for the poll on Akrotiri and Dhekelia at Template talk:Europe and should perhaps co-ordinate with what is going on at Special member state territories and their relations with the EU? There are 3 British Crown Dependencies Guernsey, Jersey, and Isle of Man;

plus

14 British Overseas Territories - kayla ♥♥♥♥ Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St Helena and Dependencies (Ascension and Tristan da Cunha), South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

The list on this page misses out -

British Antarctic Territory - just has researchers there, but so do South Georgia and South Sandwich

Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia - sounds like just a military base, but actually has about 7,000 Cypriot civilian permanent inhabitants not related to the bases (plus further temporarily posted 7,000 UK civilians and military connected to the bases) - whereas BIOT is listed here although it is purely a US military base (Diego Garcia) from which all the inhabitants (Ilois or Chagossians) were deported, and St Helena plus its dependencies have large military presence (on Ascension) with about same non-military-related population as SBAs.Civil Servant 14:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The thing is:

  • The areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are not Cypriot territory, they are British territory, where British law is applicable. BIOT is made of some islands that are British Territory too. I don't see any differences. "Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia - sound like just a military base". Yes it sounds, but a military base is not Akrotiri and Dhekelia. The areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia contain military bases. For instance, Guantanamo is not american territory. It is Cuban territory rented to the USA. Guatanamo is different from Ak. & Dhek.--Joao Campos 02:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What counts as inhabited

Palmyra Atoll has no indigenous inhabitants, but 4 to 20 Nature Conservancy staff and US Fish and Wildlife staff. Please see CIA - The World Factbook -- Palmyra Atoll. Pædia 15:48, 2004 May 25 (UTC)

That is a July 2003 estimate. Check http://nature.org/wherewework/asiapacific/palmyra/ and http://nature.org/wherewework/asiapacific/palmyra/faqs/index.html. Who do you trust the CIA or TNC? older≠wiser 19:52, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

You are totally correct to call it uninhabited, by definition. However, in the context of this article, it probably belongs under heading 2; the last Nature Conservancy Press Release was January 18, 2001. Pædia 09:23, 2004 May 31 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the distinction is supposed to indicate. There are likely "visitors" to most of the U.S. islands that are designated Wildlife Refuges. To me the word uninhabited means there are no permanent residents. Just about anyplace can have visitors--I don't understand the point of making such a distinction. older≠wiser 21:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In my interpretation, Inhabited means "lived in by permanent residents", Stationed personnel or visitors means "permanently staffed or visited regularly", and Uninhabited means "at most, visited about annually". Pædia 13:26, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the explanations should go with each header. Maybe I'm the only one confused, but I don't find the second heading to be self-explanatory. I also think there is a big difference between a place with permanently stationed personnel and places that do not have permanent residents (though they may be visited occasionally). older≠wiser 14:57, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In previous revisions, the second heading read "Islands and territories with stationed or visiting personel" [sic]. I believe this to be misleading, as some regular visitors are fishermen not "personnel". We may agree on your last statement. Pædia 18:25, 2004 Jun 5 (UTC)

You might be correct to move Ashmore and Cartier Islands to short-term visitors, although illegal immigrants from Indonesia's Rote Island and Indonesian fishermen do visit regularly. However, Palmyra Atoll does have "personnel stationed year-round". Thanks. Pædia 15:51, 2004 Jun 15 (UTC)

Ok, but where do you see that there are year-round personel at Palmyra? Except for the CIA fact file, everything I have seen describes it as uninhabited, which seems pretty unambiguous to me. older≠wiser 16:05, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Upon investigation, the most current publication is The World Factbook (July 2003 est.). Palmyra Atoll was "uninhabited" before July 2000. Please see CIA -- The World Factbook 2000 -- Palmyra Atoll. Pædia 22:41, 2004 Jun 15 (UTC)

To add?

Shouldn't Macau and Hong Kong be included in the list? And what about Western Sahara? Why are the Bassas da India, Tromelin Island, etc, listed under one territory?

Hong Kong and Macau shouldn't be listed since China considers them to be part of the country, a special administrative region, not a dependency. --Gangulf 21:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In terms of politics and government structures, Hong Kong and Macao are dependent territories, except for the rights of getting independence. Although many may associate the term "dependent territories" with colonies or trust territories that have to right to be independence, it's not necessary. A google search of "Hong Kong" and "dependency status" gives more than 5000 hits.
If anybody is not happy or is confused with the term "dependent territories", we may have to work out a better alternative. At the moment I can think of "non-sovereign entities" and "entities that are non-sovereign". Some sort of definitions will be necessary, such as the rights to issue currencies, to send delegations to international organisations, to have its own judiciary, customs and immigration policies, extradition, citizenship, etc. — Instantnood 10:29 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)
Gangulf is right. The two SARS of Hong Kong and Macau have ceased to be "dependent" since they reverted back to Chinese rule in 1997 and 1999 respectively. I noticed they are also classified under "special territories", and that is much more plausible. Otherwise, will they be happy being classified under "autonomous territories?--Huaiwei 17:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Although they are not colonies and theoretically no right to be independent, they are dependent territories. — Instantnood 21:23, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Dependent of who? China? The opposite of an "independent" territory is not neccesarily a "dependent" one!--Huaiwei 21:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Would you mind telling how would you define the term "dependent territory"? — Instantnood 23:00, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Me? Well lets look at how the British (and Commonwealth) call a "dependent territory" instead:

"A dependent territory is a territory belonging by settlement, conquest or annexation to the British, Australian or New Zealand Crown.

There are 14 British dependent territories, which are: British Indian Ocean Territory, Gibraltar, Bermuda, Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, British Antarctic Territory, St Helena and its dependencies (Ascension and Tristan da Cunha), Montserrat, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Anguilla, the Pitcairn Group of Islands, and the Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus. Hong Kong, a former dependent territory, was handed back to China on 1 July 1997."

So....does the PRC call HK and Macau "dependent territories"? Does it rule these two places via "settlement, conquest or annexation"? Show us these...and then we shall talk further. It is hardly an issue of how I define things.--Huaiwei 05:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cool. Overseas departments of the French Republic were also acquired by settlement, conquest or annexation. The definition of one of the sovereign states is not necessarily applicable to this list that involved many sovereign states. It needs a definition that allows generalisability and comparison among different sovereign states. — Instantnood 07:58, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Oh...so you feel it is neccesary to assume all countries defines "dependencies" the same way eh? So may I know if the PRC "acquired" HK by "settlement, conquest or annexation" in 1997?--Huaiwei 11:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Did I say that? What I said was the definition of one of the sovereign states does not apply to all country. A definition with generalisability has to be worked out for this list. — Instantnood 11:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
You are implying that, isnt it obvious enough? Again I ask more specifically to the case in question here: Did the PRC "acquired" HK by "settlement, conquest or annexation" in 1997?--Huaiwei 11:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No I did not imply that. Quote the sentence if you insist I did. And no for the second question. — Instantnood 12:01, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
"It needs a definition that allows generalisability and comparison among different sovereign states." If you are not asking for a singular way of defining dependent territories using one general definition, then may I know what this line is for? So, the PRC did NOT "acquir" HK by "settlement, conquest or annexation" in 1997. What makes it a "dependent territory" of the PRC then, since it falls outside the definition of the Commonwealth countries?--Huaiwei 12:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Did you read " The definition of one of the sovereign states is not necessarily applicable to this list that involved many sovereign states. "? This is a response to your quote of the definition on the British monarchy's website. — Instantnood 12:16, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
It is indeed quite obvious that they interpret that term differently. Therefore again I ask two tings. Firstly, why do you then call for a generalised term to fit all those entities into one? Second, sure, they define dependencies differently. Now, have you showed us how the PRC defines her dependencies?--Huaiwei 12:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Can't there be a general definition that is useful and applicable to most cases? — Instantnood 13:08, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Isnt it also possible to have seperate sections for each "Controlling" country if the differences warrant it, since you yourself admitted there are differences, and yet at the same time want them amalgamated?--Huaiwei 13:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Some of these sovereign states already do, but some people may argue some of the territories listed here are not dependent ones. — Instantnood 13:28, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Oh? Then why should they be here then?--Huaiwei 13:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why shouldn't they be here? — Instantnood 13:44, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Coz they are not dependent territories as you say?--Huaiwei 13:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Did I? Alright then. — Instantnood 14:40, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Oh...So we shall remove them now? --Huaiwei 06:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Did I say they are not dependent territories? — Instantnood 14:33, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Let us reread again the definitions as set out in Dependent area:

Dependent territories are commonly distinguished from subnational entities of the same country since they in most cases represent a different order of separation. A subnational entity typically represents a division of the country proper, while a dependent territory might be an overseas territory that enjoys a greater degree of autonomy.

And from subnational entities:

Subnational entity is a generic term for an administrative region within a country — on an arbitrary level below that of the sovereign state — typically with a local government encompassing multiple municipalities, counties, or provinces with a certain degree of autonomy in a varying number of matters. Confusingly, in countries that are not nation states, this may well mean that some or all "subnational" entities in reality are also national entities.

Subnational entities are conceptually separate from dependent areas so that the former are included in the core or mainland of the respective state.

Hong Kong and Macau, as subdivisions of the country of the People's Republic of China, and with a local government of high autonomy (we have to see how the on-going drama over the its choice of leader turns out thou)...is it a "dependent territory" or a "subnational entity" now?

It is becoming plain obvious.--Huaiwei 06:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then what they are? — Instantnood 14:33, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
I would say after reading this discussion that they are subnational entities with an high degree of autonomy and not dependent territories. Gangulf 16:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Spot on. ;) --Huaiwei 11:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Same quotes:
From Dependent area: " Dependent territories are commonly distinguished from subnational entities of the same country since they in most cases represent a different order of separation. A subnational entity typically represents a division of the country proper, while a dependent territory might be an overseas territory that enjoys a greater degree of autonomy. "
--> From this quote, everyone can tell the definition is not all encompassing.
From subnational entities: " Subnational entities are conceptually separate from dependent areas so that the former are included in the core or mainland of the respective state.
--> Hong Kong and Macao are obviously not considered as part of mainland China, or core parts of the PRC.
From subnational entities: " Subnational entity is a generic term for an administrative region within a country — on an arbitrary level below that of the sovereign state — typically with a local government encompassing multiple municipalities, counties, or provinces with a certain degree of autonomy in a varying number of matters. Confusingly, in countries that are not nation states, this may well mean that some or all "subnational" entities in reality are also national entities. "
--> I have read through the administrative division structure in the constitution of the PRC. Special administrative regions are not part of its administrative division system, which is prescribed by the Article 30. Article 31, which is on the special administrative region, does not say SARs are part of its division system. In other words, special administrative regions can also be posessions or colonies, and in the case of Hong Kong and Macao, dependent territories with no right to obtain independence, but at the same time are not integrated into the rest of the State. — Instantnood 09:18, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Your recent edit is amusing. Everyone?? --Huaiwei 03:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kosovo

Kosovo and Metohija is a UN protectorate. Is such a protectorate qualified to be listed in this article? (or as a disputed or occupied area or unrecognised country?) — Instantnood 20:06, Feb 15 2005 (UTC)

Please read the definition of a Dependent area:
The areas separately referred to as non-independent are territories that are disputed, are occupied, have a government in exile or have a non-negligible independence movement.
Kosovo is a disputed area within an country, and should be listed at List of active autonomist and secessionist movements. If being a UN protectorate is considered "dependent", I suppose we will have to redefine the meaning of being "dependent". Does it also include receiving aid from non-governmental international organisations?--Huaiwei 06:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Kosovo is special since it developed into a UN protectorate. That was the reason to include it. It is certainly not an autonomist and secessionist movement. So I would suggest to keep it in. Gangulf 16:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Right. The difference is those after the World War 2 were UN trust territories and are mandated to other countries to administer, while Kosovo is administered by the UN. — Instantnood 09:26, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to renew objections to its inclusion here. While it may be de facto administered by the UN, it is still de jure an autonomous province of the Republic of Serbia, one of the two constituent republics of the sovereign state of Serbia and Montenegro, isn't it? At the very least, the case should be explained more clearly. john k 00:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Basque Country

Basque Country has an entry in Category:Political parties by country, but is not mentioned in this article. How should this situation be resolved? Thanks, Beland 03:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===>Response: The Basque Country (or at least the majority and the only politically-valuable region) is an administrative district (or subnational entity) of Spain. This page about political parties is an anomaly. Justin (koavf) 03:42, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Australian territories

I'm somewhat ignorant here, but are the territories listed here all substantively different from the Northern Territory? That is to say, why is Northern Territory considered a subnational entity, but these other territories are considered dependent territories? john k 00:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Northern Territory and the ACT have representation in parliament, the small islands don't. I am not sure if that justifies the distinction though. What we need is a more precise definition of dependent territory, one that doesn't depend on the legal peculiarities of individual countries. --Chl 20:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Is there any Australian law that governs the parliamentary representation of the territories, and addresses why ACT and Northern Territory have, and the islands have not? Thanks. — Instantnood 08:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Section 122 of the constitution says: "The Parliament may ... allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit." And then they have an individual federal law for the constitution of each territory. If a justification is needed, it would probably be size: the Northern Territory has 200,000 inhabitants and 2 representatives; none of the small island territories has more than 2,000 so that's not really enough to have a representative of their own. --Chl 13:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much. As far as I know representation in the House of Representatives is based upon population, whereas for the Senate it's fixed. What is the reason why islands territories have no representation? Is it because of their population size, or because they're external? — Instantnood 17:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
The number of senators is fixed for states, but not for territories. I doubt that we can find something in Australian law that gives us a reason for the different treatment of the small territories. They just do it that way. To put this into a broader perspective: is the District of Columbia a dependent territory of the USA? It has no representation in federal parliament/congress and no legislature of its own. --Chl 14:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
According to Australian Senate both Northern Territory and ACT are having two senators each (despite ACT has a much larger population). I am not sure if that's fixed for territories like states, or if it's based on a case-by-case basis, and it turned out both Northern Territory and ACT has got the same. Is there any underlying reason why the islands, notably Norfolk Islands, have got no representation, and are differentiated from mainland territories as external territories? Yes they can just do it, but why the Norfolk Islands has to be different from the mainland territories? Are these external territories like what Northern Territory and ACT prior to self governance? — Instantnood 15:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think the following text from the article on Norfolk explains why Norfolk should be listed:

Norfolk Island is the only non-mainland Australian territory to have achieved self-governance. The Norfolk Island Act, passed by the Parliament of Australia in 1979, is the Act under which the island is governed. The Australian Government maintains authority on the island through an Administrator (currently Grant Tambling) that is appointed by the Governor-General of Australia. A Legislative Assembly is elected by popular vote for a term of not more than three years, although legislation passed by the Australian Parliament can extend its laws to the territory at will. Electionworld 08:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The federal government is represented by an administrator in the Northern Territory too, who is appointed by the Governor-General. Self-governance was not achieved in ACT until 1988. I guess the only reason Norfolk Island is excluded is that legislation passed by the Australian Parliament may or may not be extended to it, unlike the case of Northern Territory and the ACT. — Instantnood 09:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Åland

I'm interested to know why Åland listed is not listed? Did it ever appear on the list? — Instantnood 14:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the same thing. What about all autonomous regions and territories? Don't they have even greater political independence as oppose to some of these territories listed here? --Kvasir 22:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Autonomous territories which are incorporated into the countries are not dependent territories. Aland is part of Finland, the Canadian territories are part of Canada, Tibet and Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia are part of China, the republics are part of Russia. Puerto Rico is not part of the United States. john k 23:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Incorporation here is the focus point of the discussion here. Subnational entities - Canadian territories, PRC autonomous regions and the Russian republics - are normally incorporated into state proper and under the federal/central governments. Åland, in comparison, is not like these typical subnational entities. It is generally outside of the Finnish government. Some dependent territories listed in the article, such as the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Jan Mayen, are part of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of Norway, respectively. Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are, together with the European part of the Netherlands, three constituents of the Kingdom of Netherlands. In contrast, UK is an example that all crown dependencies and overseas territories are not considered part of itself. Obviously the systems vary from State to State.
Territories between those in the country-proper and external ones are not clear-cut as many might have thought. I have been trying to look for the differences between mainland territories (e.g. Northern Territory, ACT) and external territories (e.g. Norfolk Island) of Australia (see the section above), and the only major difference is representation in the Australian Parliament. Norfolk Island is self-governing and the other external territories aren't, but then ACT was too not self-governing in the past, it used to be administered by the federal government. US territories, namely, territories in North America in the past which later became states, and the current ones in the Caribbean and in the Pacific, could be very similar in nature, except their geographical locations.
Åland may not be a dependent territory when we're going strict on the definitions, but the way it is special should allows its listing - with careful additional notes. — Instantnood 08:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
In the case of the Netherlands Dutch law is not applicable in Aruba and the Antilles. I think the same goes for Denmark. Electionworld 12:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Do the Dutch and Danish parliaments have the power to enact laws that are extended to / applied in Aruba and the Antilles, and Faroe Islands and Greenland, like the Australian does to Norfolk? — Instantnood 12:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
The Dutch parliament doesn't have this power. A joint parliamentary session has to power to make Kingdom Laws on very specific matters, such as nationality. Electionworld 11:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. The set up is more like a loose federation than sovereign and dependencies in some sense. :-D — Instantnood 11:47, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
A relevant criterium is the applicatibility (is this English) of the legislation of the motherland. For example: In Aruba Dutch law is not applicable. The same goes for Norfolk, Australian law is not applicable. The Northern Territory has Australian legislation, though it can have additional own legislation. Another criterium is the way the motherland sees the territory: For example: Australia considers ACT to be part of Australia. A third criterium is the international status. The last criterium justifies Aland on the list. Electionworld 12:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
As for the second criterium Åland is considered part of Finland too, and so as Faroe Islands, Greenland, Svalbard and Jan Mayen to the Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of Norway. — Instantnood 12:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Why are, then, Bouvetøya, Jan Mayen and Svalbard on this list? They are integral parts of the Kingdom of Norway. Greenland and Faroes are not, because they are self-governing Danish territories. --Kvasir 19:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Svalbard is perhaps different from the other two. It is demilitarised, and it has a governor who's residing at its capital. Its sovereignty was awarded to Norway by treaty. Faroe and Greenland are part of the Kingdom of Denmark. There was actually a long discussion at template talk:Europe. :-) — Instantnood 20:27, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I will add the content of Dependent area as an introduction to this article. Electionworld 11:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

As Åland was without further discussion removed I re-added it. Also Hong Kong was removed by the same user, but I don't know anything about that discussion so I did not revert that change. Anyhow: Åland is demilitarized, has different international status, it's own separate EU-treaty, for example. It has it's own parliament, its own government and can make it's own laws. Within the Nordic Council, Åland is one of the eight members, and has equal status as the otehr countries and autonomous areas. There seems no reason at all not to include Åland. --Regebro 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You conveniently missed out on one defining criterion on what a dependency is as compared to a subnational entity: that they are not considered to be part of the motherland or mainland of the governing State. Trying to list out all examples of autonomy, but not being able to show that it is considered by law to be distinct from the "motherland", will not be helpful at all. This have been discussed very extensively before, and it is your onus to go read them up. We do not have to repeat the points all over again.--Huaiwei 17:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I may have "conventiently" missed out on that, but that doesn't change the fact that Åland still matches these criteria. It is not considered a part of the motherland or mainland of the governing state. I find it rather self-evident that it is not, or it wouldn't be discussed at all. ;)
I also can't find any consensus for your removal of Hong Kong, but maybe I misinterpret the debate below. --Regebro 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Greenland and the Faroe Islands are surely part of Denmark. Why are you keeping them on this list, Huaiwei? — Instantnood 18:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Canada

So what is the consensus on Australian Territories? I think the situation for Canada's three territories is similar. --Kvasir 22:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Canada has no external territories like Australia does. :-) — Instantnood 12:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

China, Russia

What about these countries numerous autonomous republics and provinces? --Kvasir 22:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Here it is clear: China and Russia consider them as part of the motherland. Electionworld 12:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, there has been a long-drawn out debate over whether the two SARs are dependencies or subnational entities.--Huaiwei 22:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I think Kvasir and Gangulf are talking about autonomous regions of the PRC, and autonomous republics and autonomous oblasts and autonomous okrugs of Russia. ;-) — Instantnood 08:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
And so? I am talking about the SARs. Would you not think its about time the statuses of the two SARS should come under public and widespread scrutinity?--Huaiwei 08:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Huaiwei I understand you remain heavily sceptical towards their listings, but what should be said have been said. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Wikipedia is not a test ground to put forward your point of view. Wikipedia does not and should not present only one single point of view, and ignore the others. — Instantnood 09:07, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Mind defining what is being disruptive here. I have noticed your constant reference to that term, and I meanwhile do wonder if it similarly applies to your own edits. May I remind also, that being "disruptive" is not a wikipedia policy, but a semi-policy. Apparantly, it has its uses and merits if needed. Meanwhile, I would similarly love to know your agenda in the above point. I would have tought open discussion from all quaters would be the best solution in any content dispute. By the above, not only do you appear reluctant to talk, but you even called this a "disruptive" move. Sure, I do have a point to make. Do you have none? I doubt so. While you tell others not to use wikipedia to illustrate one view, may I know why is it so, that you appear to consider it justified for wikipedia to only present your view?
So, are you game for an open, honest discussion? Or do you still want to play edit warring and other silly games now and for eternity?--Huaiwei 10:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Before I came to notice your activities on Wikipedia, Hong Kong was already on this list. It was listed as a stand-alone section on most lists by countries, and is grouped under categories by countries. Somehow I did wonder who is having an agenda to turn, if not exploit, Wikipedia as the test ground for her/his point of view. It also happens that you are reverting edits of other people if those edits contradict with your point of view, and you refuse to restore to previous versions. Your long-time ally user:SchmuckyTheCat did not even going through the move requests process to change the titles of some articles, and after that you took the advantage to edit "according to what the title says", despite changes to titles are disputed. Who's reluctant to talk? What should be said have been said. Am I not welcoming third-party opinion in times of disputes? I explicitly request for it~!
I don't expect an eventual resolution between you and I would be possible in the near future. But for the time being I do wish you will not ruin this thread of discussions on the autonomous entities of the PRC and Russia, and turn it into another battleground. Please. — Instantnood 10:22, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Moved content

Electionworld has merged the content of dependent area into this list. — Instantnood 11:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong

I sent an email to Information Services Department, Hong Kong, asking

"May I know is Hong Kong a dependent territory of PRC?"

I received a one-sentence rely from Helen Leung, Publishing and Internet Resource Section, Information Services Department, (email:irc@isd.gov.hk), which says

"Hong Kong should not be considered as a dependent territory of China."

(The bold highlight of "China" is by Helen Leung). With this response from a Hong Kong official, I hope it will resolve the dispute regarding the status of Hong Kong. --Vsion 23:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we already solved the question bu adding the category Special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement in this entry. - Electionworld 06:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
If I were the government official to answer this question, I'll probably give more or less the same answer. No where on legal or constitutional documents says it is or it isn't. What is said is that it is an "inalienable part", a "local administrative region.. enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government", etc. As a government official responsible to answer these enquiries she/he doesn't have to know the definitions of dependent territory. What she/he has to do is to tell Hong Kong is a special administrative region, and what special administrative region is. Anyhow, I agree with Electionworld that this is solved. — Instantnood 07:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
No, I do not think that statement solves this issue. The use of the words "dependency"/"special territory"/"autonomy" etc are not chosen at random, and automatically considered interchangeable. The idea that a "dependency" and a "special territory" as being in a "similar position" as claimed in the article is highly erroneous, and I would call for its removal unless verified by authoritative sources. A dependency is not considered part of the country's core, while a special territory is, and this difference alone is big enough to take precedence over all other factors.
We already have the HK authorities giving a clear-cut reply. Instead of trying to reject official statements (as Instantnood has similarly done over the debate on Victoria City) and giving excuses to explain their responses, I would strongly call for them to be the definitive and final say in issues as crucial to national identity and sovereignty as this.--Huaiwei 16:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I created a seperate article. Electionworld 17:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
There are well established conventions from the point of view of political scientists to tell what are dependent territories, and what are not. There are dozens of states, and probably more in the past, calling themselves Democratic Republic or Democratic People's Republic, but almost none is truly democratic. The same for Victoria City, which is seen as a de facto capital, at least by historians. — Instantnood 17:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Please Instantnood, let's not waste time over this. I undertook to ask isd.gov.hk on this and the official reply is very clear. The high autonomy of Hong Kong is already emphasized in many places, but it does not qualify it as a dependent terroritory. Why don't you create a page call "List of entities with high autonomy" or similarly name? --Vsion 18:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't know anything about your academic background.. IMHO to conclude that Hong Kong and Macao are absolutely not dependent territories, you have to proof that i) they are never mentioned as such by any reputable and reliable source, and ii) experts in this field, i.e. political scientists and academics of international relations, generally agree that they are not dependent territories according to the established conventions of the field. Alternatively, if you are going to limit this list to include only territories which governments consider themselves as dependent territories, you will have to enquire the government of each of the territories on the list. — Instantnood 18:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Vision's view is supported by an official statement. Your view is not. If you express concern over his "conclusive evidence", then may I also express concern over your own conclusion that it is a dependency? Who are the political scientists and academics you talk about? Where was the agreement made? I have enough familiarity with political geography to smell a rat in your enthusiastic claims. And I see a repeat in a common problem of yours. Why do you demand vision to send an email to all other governments just because he sent one to HK? The HK issue is hotly contested by the relevant opposing parties, and hence, it is only natural that one of these parties sends an email to the relevant government. Are the other territories under serious debate? If so, may the people who show concern over them do the neccesary. And that includes individuals like yourself who appear to be VERY concerned over the political well-being of all non-independent states on planet earth.--Huaiwei 18:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not demanding anybody to do anything. That was just my opinion on what proof and evidence is needed to make the claim a valid one. It is irrelevant whether the status of other territories are under debate. Meanwhile the definition of dependent territory on Wikipedia remains - " territories that for some reason do not enjoy full independence or sovereignty as states ". — Instantnood 19:17, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
the definition of dependent territory on Wikipedia If the definition on Wikipedia is different than the rest of the world, than Wikipedia fails. One of the wikipedia policies is "don't make shit up". If we have prescribed a definition of dependent territory, rather than described it, we fail. SchmuckyTheCat 20:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
It is very apparant, that the official word takes clear precedence, especially in a topic like this. While you claim that "political scientists" and "historians" support your viewpoint, they remain largely as claims despite months of intense discussions. Not surprisingly, they are prompty rejected when solid evidence exists to counter your claims. Your analogy over the names of countries is irrelevant, because we are not in a debate over names. Have you wrote to Kim's government asking him if North Korea is a democracy? In summary therefore, stick to the points at hand, and resist the temptation to deviate and complicate the issue to advance your claims.--Huaiwei 18:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Well.. Kim will definitely say yes~! :-P — Instantnood 18:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Have you sent an email to them?--Huaiwei 18:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Dear Instantnood and Huaiwei: Please fight elsewhere. Electionworld 21:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I share Electionworld's view to put Hong Kong and Macao under the category of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement. While "dependencies" are mostly "overseas territories" of sovereign states by nature, all the four "special entities" (Hong Kong, Macao, Åland and Svalbard) are situated near their "motherland". But unlike autonomous entities and component states of federations which also enjoy high degree of autonomy / sovereignty over their own affairs, the four "special entities" are generally recognized by the international community to act as separate entities in certain aspects (normally non-political) of international arena, like economic, social, environmental and cultural affairs. So I think they are something between "dependency" and "autonomou/federal subjects" that can be well fit in a new category. DD Ting 16:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Nah, location in relation to the mother country plays no role in determining the status of a territory. Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are close to the UK but they are not part of it. Yet the French overseas departments scattered all over are considered intergral part of France. --Kvasir 18:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
And Finnmark was a Norwegian colony before being integrated into the Kingdom as a county. :-D — Instantnood 19:06, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
(response to DD Ting's comment at 16:03, September 8) The trouble is that some of these territories with special status are conventionally regarded as dependent territories. They are, according to the definitions of many people, considered and grouped as dependent territories. I agree with Electionworld to move them to a separate list, but as per the Wikipedia policy that different points of view have to be presented, I would prefer to have a section for the PRC on this list, with a pointer to the new list [1], so that information will not be unnecessarily duplicated. — Instantnood 19:06, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Listing the same entity in two list is creating "unnecessarily duplication", especially when they do not qualify in one list. Wikipedia policy may allow for multiple POV, but it does not mean it then claims the earth may be flat because some think it is true either now or since the dawn of mankind. It has been scientifically proven that the earth is not flat. It becomes an established fact. In this case, it has been politically/administratively proven that HK is not a dependency, and it becomes an established fact too. Your claims that it is a dependency according to the "definitions of many people" remains an unverified claim until it is proven true. As far as I know, in fact, most people outside HK has already began to regard it as basically a part of China since 1997. Kindly show me how many people regard HK as a colony of the PRC?--Huaiwei 21:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
How was Hong Kong not a dependency " politically/administratively proven "? :-P Is there any people within Hong Kong considering Hong Kong not part of the PRC since 1997? What's your reasoning to equate colony with dependent territory? Your own point of view asides, if one is truly a geographer and have some background in political geography, she/he should probably know who and how many people are considering Hong Kong, Macao and Svalbard as dependent territory. — Instantnood 07:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

For sure geographical location plays no role in determining the status of a country. My emphasis is that while these special entities are considered by their mother countries as part of the latter, they enjoy certain degree of autonomy in their own affairs, in particular two unique aspects, (i) preservation of their own legal/judicial/economic/etc. systems vis-á-vis their mother countries (determined and guaranteed by international treaty/agreement but not just granted by their mother countries), and (ii) high degree of independent authorities in external relations (e.g. participating in international organizations (in their own capacity) that are mainly formed by countries like Åland in Arctic Council and Hong Kong in WTO and APEC, signing economic/social/cultural/etc. treaties with other countries (not just limited to "local governments" of other countries). It makes them different from other similar "general" autonomous units of countries like Azores, Madeira Islands, Canary Islands, Ceuta, Melilla and the overseas departments of France (Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana and Réunion) and "conventional" dependencies. The present List of countries has already made a clear categorization of different kinds of countries in accordance with the following sequence -

(a) Internationally recognized de jure sovereign states
(b) Generally unrecognized but de facto independent states
(c) Entities recognized by many countries as sovereign but not de facto independent
(d) (Inhabited) Dependent territories
(e) Special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement
(f) UN's protectorate inside the de jure territory of a sovereign state

--DD Ting 02:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The bold highlight of China makes the whole thing confusing, as though the point being emphasized is that it is not China of which Hong Kong is a dependent territory, rather than that Hong Kong is not a dependent territory at all. At any rate, as Instantnood points out, I'm not sure that it is for the government of the PRC to determine whether or not Hong Kong is a dependent territory of China. For us to determine if their answer is decisive, I think we should have to ask the American government if Guam is a dependent territory of the US, the French government if New Caledonia is a dependent territory of France, the British government if Anguilla is a dependent territory of the UK, and so forth. In terms of our list, I'm fairly certain that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, if an inquiry were made, would not be described by the British government as dependent territories. But if we are to accept self definitions as definitive, I don't see why we should take any dependent territories for granted. john k 02:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: I'm fairly certain that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, if an inquiry were made, would not be described by the British government as dependent territories.
A quick research with gov.uk websites shows that they are British crown dependency as stated in the article:
  • Isle of Man, please look at 2nd last paragraph of [2]
  • Guernsey (Channel Islands), [3]
  • also, Guam is listed as incorporated unincorporated territory in [4]
--Vsion 02:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
john has said what we should do if the list is compiled according to self definitions. We should not take "dependencies of the Crown" and (un)incorporated territories for granted that they're self-defined as dependent territories. But back to the basic is this list compiled according to self definitions? — Instantnood 07:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


I see that there is a "notes" section at the bottom of the article. Maybe it could be a good place to explain why Hong Kong is not on the list of dependant terrotitories? --Regebro 11:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

France

If it is felt necessary to clarify the position of the overseas "départements" (Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guyane and Réunion), then surely some comment is required on the "collectivités territorials" (Saint Pierre et Miquelon and Mayotte) Skinsmoke 02:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Portugal

Surely some comment is required on the autonomous regions of Açores and Madeira, which are not part of the mainland, and have a status which is different from that held by mainland regions Skinsmoke 02:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Page Move

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.


The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was <Page was moved to Dependent territory>

Requested move

Proposal  : Dependent territory → Dependent territory
Rationale :   Singulariz/sation per WP:MoS.
Proposer : David Kernow 14:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation and then your signature ("~~~~").






See also: Talk:Dependent area
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

four entities which have special positions recognised by international treaty or agreement

I've marked "four entities which have special positions recognised by international treaty or agreement" with {{Verify source}} as no explanation is given. How is it known that there are only four? What is an entity? Svalbard is a part of Norway, in what way is it an "entity"? In what way do these areas have "special positions"? What is the relevance of the treaty/agreement? Unless someone comes up with a reliable source I'll remove the statement. Dagnabit 16:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And why would they then not be dependant territories? I'm putting Åland back until somebody can explain that. --Regebro 11:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Read the entire talkpage above.--Huaiwei 15:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, done that. The page of four enteties should be deleted, and the enteties on it should be moved back to this page. Any claim that they are not "dependent terrotories" seems to clearly be against WP:NOR, and the list of countreis clearly lists them under dependant territories. --Regebro 11:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Very funny. First, an entry in "List of countries" dosent turn them into dependencies, and the list is itself a case of original research. Next, to add each of those four entries back to dependent terrotory, you have to discuss why there are dependent territories, failing which it is a case of original research too. There are plenty of discussions on why they are not, and these has been supported with evidence. You appear to conveniently ignore them. I challenge you to take this issue up with wikipedians who are citizens from each of the three "motherland" countries involved if finding the relevant discussions is too hard for you.--Huaiwei 12:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I do not conveniently ignore them. You do. The Peoples of the "motherlands" are also not unbiased, so I challange you to find verifiable unbiased sources for your claims. If notm it is original research, which is against Wikipedia policies. --Regebro 12:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I do? Demonstrate it. I certainly wish users here are geniunely interested in discussing contents at hand factually, rather then being emotionally motivated from past negative experiences with the same individuals.--Huaiwei 12:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
As usual, you make this an argument about persons, and not about the issues. --Regebro 12:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Ditto to you. Your very participation in this discourse, your obvious display of disruptive editing and the dismissal of previous concensus are reminiscent of past debates involving the same individuals, and does raise eyebrows.--Huaiwei 13:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The debate is indeed very similar. You have no argument, and start editwarring and try to make it into a personal issue instead of discussing the facts. --Regebro 11:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Deja vu. And why does it seem as thou you are suddenly appearing in just about any discourse I am currently engaged in (and systemetically disagreeing with me in practically every one of them)?--Huaiwei 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Does two issues make "just about any"? Again you are insinuating incorrect behaviour. Ad hominem. PLease discuss the issue, not the persons. --Regebro 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you claiming there are only two issues involved? And yes I AM suggesting that you are engaging in inappriopriate behavior by wikistalking. For someone who files a RFC on another wikipedian who dares disagree with him, I hardly think he is in a position to remind others to "discuss issues, not persons".--Huaiwei 17:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, as far as I know we have disputes only about two issues. This and Single-party state. Your claim that I created that RfC for other reasons than the ones stated in the RfC are perhaps understandable, but incorrect. --Regebro 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

History of this Page

In September 2005 it was decided to remove four entries and place them on their own page, List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement, as they were not dependencies (See the section titled Hong Kong on this talk page for a discussion on it). In September 2006, User:Privacy unilaterally moved the 4 entries back from List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement to here. From that point on we have had multiple users removing the entires (or some of them) and other users, mainly User:Privacy, adding them back. User:Privacy has made similar changes on List of Countries (with the changes regularly being removed) and Template:Countries of Europe (with a large editwar occurring). -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 16:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see no such decision above. In any case, what I am missing is a discussion about the split of these territories from the dependant territories. What happened is that [5] "overseas" was changed to dependent" without any further discussion. But I have yet to see any reference to that "dependent" must mean "overseas". Looking through the history of the pages, it seems that this split only comes from the renaming of "overseas" to "dependent" and that they for some reason then are used interchangeably, with no further explanation to why.
As to some of the above discussions, the discussion about whether Hong Kong or a subnational entity or not reaches a clearly incorrect conclusion. A subnational entity with large amounts of independance. Subnational entities are ways of dividing countries into smaller areas. For example, in the US there are the 50 states, in France there are the Departements, in China you have provinces, and in Finland you have kunta (municipalities). Hong Kong however is not just a province like everybody else, but has a spcial status. It is therefore not a subnational entity. Same goes for Åland. It is not a subnational entity, but is a separate country in a form of unique and special union with Finland.
The argument that these are subnational enteties is therefore wrong. This doesn't mean that they are dependant territories, but so far no real argument for this has arrived. Arguments for this, or even better refences for this, should be given. --Regebro 11:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It is therefore not a subnational entity. Careful with your therefores. SchmuckyTheCat 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Care to explain why that would be non-sequitur? --Regebro 15:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I kind of wonder just what has Regebro been reading. The discussions was hardly about "overseas", especially when discussing about the HK issue. Its about what constitutes an "integral part of the motherland". So if HK has a "Special status", and therefore is not a subnational entity, I suppose every entity on earth which has a special status is also not one? Shall we now elevate every entity with the slightest sense of "autonomy" to "dependency" status? The simplicity of thought in your comment is astounding, and suggests to me that you have not fully reflected or researched on the topic at hand.--Huaiwei 16:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
That's the whole point. There hasn't been much discussion about the overseas thingy. The distinction you are now makeing is a historical artefact of the renaming of "overseas" into "dependent". But nobody has come up with any sources to why this would be the same thing, and why these four territories shouldn't be included in dependant territories, just because they weren't included in overseas territories. I'm not saying they should be included in dependent territories, I'm just saying nobody has come with any verifiable source to why they should not be included, when they according to the definitions give should be included. --Regebro 16:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with overseas. Hong Kong is an integral part of China, by law and treaty. It is not a dependent territory, in fact or in law. It maintains it's special administration because of an international agreement filed with the United Nations. SchmuckyTheCat 16:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Because, my dear Regebro, "overseas" is hardly a factor in determining what is a dependency! Just what distinction are you claiming that I made? And once you again you turn a complete blind eye on the exceedingly extensive discussions that has taken place over the political status of each of the four entities above, not just in this talkpage, but in many articles all over wikipedia (and I thought you have a nack for insisting others arent looking at your references?). These discussions are on why they are not dependencies, and hence should be removed. A new article to list these four entities was later introduced as a compromise, and was included for their similar trait of being recognised by international treaty. If you have an issue with the existance of that article, then go right there are ask for a RfD. But I have to repeat, that getting that article deleted and the question of whether these four entities are dependencies or not are two seperate issues. Is this not clear enough, or do I have to repeat this again?--Huaiwei 16:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Huaiwei, it is totally clear: It has nothing to do with overseas and Because, my dear Regebro, "overseas" is hardly a factor in determining what is a dependency!. Very good. Then we all three agree about that.
The claim that they were included because of the similar trait of being recgnised by international treaty are not correct. They were being included in that list, and excluded from this list, on the basis that the same distintion was done in the list of countries. The debate is still up there, and I have read it all, Huaiwei. However, as is visible from the history of the List of countries, this distinction used to be a distinction between "overseas territories" and "territories recognised by international treaties". Then "overseas territories" was renamed "dependent territories" (diff here: [6]). You are now saying that being overseas or not is not a valid distinction. I agree. So my question is then: what is the distinction?. No answer to this has been forthcoming. Is this question clear?
To summarize: I have seen the following arguments for these countries not being dependent territories:
  1. They are subnational entities. As I showed above this is not a valid argument.
  2. They are not overseas. You agree that this is not a valid argument.
  3. They are separated on the List of countries. But this is in fact also because they are not overseas, and therefore, this is also not a valid argument.
  4. They are recognized by international treaties. Well so are many of the dependent territories, so this is also not a valid argument.
So, where are the valid arguments? These are what I ask for, and please Huaiwei, just come with the bloody valid argumenst instead of trying to turn this into a personal fight between you an me. I couldn't care less about you or your fights with Instntood and Privacy and everybody else. This is about the issues. OK? --Regebro 17:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I read the first few lines, and I had enough. My question to you: Are you discussing about the inclusion of four entities in this page, or are you talking about some texts in List of countries?--Huaiwei 17:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
As I clearly explained in the answer you don't want to read, both, since they are the same thing. --Regebro 17:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, none of the four should be on list of countries, but that's a discussion for that page, not here. They are not dependent because they are clear parts of their respective nation. Wikipedia does not prescribe definitions to things. It describes things. Hong Kong and Macau, at least, specifically deny that status as a dependent territory and it is not our job to define it some other way. SchmuckyTheCat 18:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This page lists the dependent territories. So does List of countries. Reasonably, these two lists, since they list the same thing, should be the same. Where the discussion is done or not doesn't matter to me, but it is in fact the same discussion, as it is the same lists. So far the discussion has been done here, and I see no reason to move it, as this is where the bulk of the discussion has been had.
In any case, Åland it is not "a clear part of the respective nation" in any reasonable mening. It does have a special status, it has it's own international contracts with for example the European Union and such. I'm surprised by that statement when it comes to Hong Kong, but I do not know the details, which is why I several times have asked for explanations and references. --Regebro 18:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The references should be the international agreements themselves. China claims Hong Kong and Macau have always been it's territory that was under foreign administration for some time. The HK government, at least, has specifically denied the status of dependent territory. That is as close a reference as you can get. SchmuckyTheCat 19:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I find that a reasonable argument (at least if references to this can be given). But this doesn't apply to Åland. So in this case we at a minium stop treating these territories as a homogenous group. I tried to do that before (that's how I got into this, because some page about and referenced this page, but and wasn't on it, and I noticed it had recently been removed. Turns out it hadn't been on here long, but I didn't know that. ;) ). I added back just Åland, and it stayed for a while and then it was removed again. The discussion about Åland above doens't contain any consensus and hardly any argumentation for why it shouldn't be on the list.
It seems to me that the split here orginates in the split on the list of countries and that this split has no basis in these terriories real statuses, but ended up like that for rather historical/hysterical reasons. :) And now people are trying to just preserve that situation because it happens to agree with their POV when it comes to Hong Kong and Macau. And Åland gets caught in the middle. It would be better if we could discuss the issues without pulling in historical edits and instead trying reasoning and verifiable sources, as per Wikipedia procedure. --Regebro 19:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a lot of knowledge of Aland. Bring it up as a seperate subject. SchmuckyTheCat 20:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It already is. See above. I could start another section once again of you want, but it seems kinda silly. --Regebro 20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
ok then, nothing more to add. SchmuckyTheCat 20:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I bet the British government and the governments of Isle of Man and Jersey and Guernsey would not confirm the crown dependencies are dependent territories. Same for Australia, Norfolk Island, New Zealand, Cook Islands, Aruba, Netherlands, Greenland, Denmark, United States, Puerto Rico. There are different names, different structures and different relations, from place to place. - Privacy 20:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't that make pretty much the whole page original research? :) --Regebro 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
On what basis are you making this assumption? Did you write to the respective governments you mentioned?--Huaiwei 12:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits of Dec. 2006

I am trying to update this page based on what was decided in September 2005 (that the 4 entities should be on their own list). I think that these changes improve the page and correct information that is contradicted on other pages. As changes to the French and Dutch dependencies will take place in the next few months (Saint-Barthélemy and Saint Martin leaving Guadeloupe & the break up of Netherlands Antilles into Sint Maarten, Curaçao, Bonaire, Saba, and Sint Eustatius - the first two as separate parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the latter three becoming part of the Netherlands), more changes will be made to this page. It will be helpful if we have a stable version of the page to work from when these changes are made. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 16:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian dependencies

The official Norwegian term for these possessions is biland, which is probably best translated as dependency rather than territory. I will make the required changes in the article. -- Nidator 21:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

additional dependent territories

There are two more dependent territories that should be added to the list. Each territory is under the control of Pakistan but is not constitutionally part of that country. Together, the two territories comprise the Pakistani-controlled portion of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK)

Federally Administered Northern Areas (FANA)

Atelerix (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also disputed with India, so not sure if the definition is applied to those areas as the others are listed. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Canadian territories

File:Canada provinces 1999-present.png

The article has not addressed what is among the largest dependent territories on the planet: the territories of Canada, in a country which itself has remnants of dependency on the Queen of England (as with Australia, New Zealand, etc).--Tdadamemd (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Canadian territories are integral parts of Canada. This list is only for external territories. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Easter Island and Juan Fernández Islands

As far as I know these two are still integral parts of Chile, and not dependencies... Shouldn't we have some references? Joaopais 16:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I found this in ythe spanish wikipedia:
una reforma constitucional efectuada en 2007 estableció a la isla como un "territorio especial", de manera que su gobierno y administración será regido por un estatuto especial, contemplado en la ley orgánica constitucional respectiva, por dictarse.
I says that since 2007 the island is assigned as a "special territory" and that its government and administration will be subject to special statute. Well i think this needs a citation in the article. Dentren | Talk 13:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Constitution of Chile said: Artículo 126 bis. Son territorios especiales los correspondientes a Isla de Pascua y al Archipiélago Juan Fernández. El Gobierno y Administración de estos territorios se regirá por los estatutos especiales que establezcan las leyes orgánicas constitucionales. Both are special territories, not overseas or dependent territories, and both are integral part of Chile. Chilean Antarctic Territory, according to Chilean government, is integral part of Chile, not dependent or oversea territory. So, I've deleted Chile section - Chile hasn't any overseas territories. Aotearoa from Poland (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Although the Easter Island is part of normal Chilean territorial division it enjoys certain autonomy and special status wich makes me doutb about if it is or not a depdent territory. Dentren | Talk 15:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Antarctic territories

As far as I known Chile and Argentina's Antarctic territories are not considered dependent territories. They are national provinces, right? Joaopais 02:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

non-dependent territories

"Despite continuing indigenous claims otherwise, the Polynesian archipelago of Hawaii, is a state and an integral part of the United States, and is therefore not a dependency. In complete disregard of Cuba's sovereignty but under terms of treaties with Cuba, the United States leases Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Thus it's not a dependent territory under the sovereignty of the United States."

I removed the above quote for several reasons. First, this is an article about dependent territories, not an article about non-dependent territories. Second, the tone is argumentative rather than encyclopedic. For example, sentences have suspect beginnings like "Despite..." and "In complete disregard of...". Finally, the whole section is uncited.

Before it is put back in, a valid reason should be given for including it, and the tone needs to change completely. Readin (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I bet (or at least hope) these same statements are better made and cited in other articles that should be linked from this one. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The Overseas regions of French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Réunion are integral parts of the French Republic, and are therefore not dependencies.

I included Hawaii because is the only US State which is in another continent, and as you can read above, the US is not the only country to have "integral parts" in other continents. But if you can check back the history, you will found an anonimous edit which included the "Despite continuing indigenous claims ". JC (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2008 (PST)

I'm not sure if it is relevant because I'm not sure I understand the reasoning, but Hawaii is an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, not part of another continent.
Hawaii is as much a part of the United States as Florida or Nebraska. It doesn't need to be mentioned. If there were evidence of a lot confusion on the topic, then we might need to re-discuss but even then I think the bar for inclusion would need to be pretty high.Readin (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, Hawaii is considered to be part of Oceania, and I'm agree to consider the islands as an integral part of the US, as well the French departments are integral parts of France, and such departments are in fact mentioned in the article. JC (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2008 (PST)

TAAF

Why there each district of TAAF is listed separately. All these islands and Adelie Land forms one overseas territory (see article). --Kikos (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point, whoever did it before should not have done it that way (should be the same way as French Polynesia). I'll correct it. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Canary Islands and enclaves of Melilla and Ceuta

I don't know too much about this subject but shouldn't these three piece of land be mentioned in the article?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No - these are considered by Spain to be integral parts of that country. Similarly, Alaska and Hawaii is considered an integral part of the United States and French Guiana is considered an integral part of France. The Canary Islands are an Autonomous Community of Spain, and Ceuta and Melilla are Autonomous Cities that are a division of Spain proper but that are independent of any Autonomous Community. Pfainuk talk 12:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

adding a new section

I want to add a new section Sabah and Sarawak on the basis of reference as follows:

  • United Nations and Decolonization*
  • United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories
  • General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), 4 Principle 9 of the Annex
  • Questions and Answers Decolonization Brochure
  • What the United Nations Can Do to Assist Non-Self-Governing Territories
  • Igarashi, Masahiro (2002). "Procedural Elements of Associated States". Associated statehood in international law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 229. ISBN 9041117105, 9789041117106. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Manila Accord (31 July 1963)}}

are there any objections? Her631 (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please point us to the relevant parts of those documents, which support your addition, preferably quoting those parts here, and providing a date so that other editors may see if these references are current ?
It seems to be the prevalent view that these are states of Malaysia, rather than dependent territories, so I guess the onus is going to be on you to show how that is not the case
thank you  -  Begoon (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Specifically - this is the "about" page from the official Sabah website: http://www.sabah.org.my/bm/kenali_sabah/index.asp
It states: "Sabah, the second largest state in Malaysia, located on the northern island of Borneo, the third largest island in the world."
and the "about" page from the official Sarawak website: http://www.sarawak.gov.my/seg.php?recordID=M0001&mainmenuID=M0001
states: "Sarawak is the largest of Malaysia’s 13 states"
Since both these official government sites refer to themselves as states of Malaysia, it would seem to need something very specific to show how they are not.
 -  Begoon (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how many different ways I can say this but that second link is a list of former non-self governing territories. The years signify the date when they ceased to be non-self governing territories. The UN does not consider any territory on that page to be non-self governing. That is an indisputable fact. In that context, your first, third, fourth, and fifth links are all irrelevant, because they all talk about non-self governing territories in general and not Sabah or Sarawak specifically. Page 4 of your sixth source describes Sabah and Sarawak as "dependent territories that have become integrated with independent states," so that runs against your argument and not for it. All that leaves is the seventh source, which as near as I can tell doesn't have any bearing on the current legal status of Sabah and Sarawak. And even if it did, I don't see anything in there which contradicts the claim that Sabah and Sarawak are integral parts of Malaysia.
I'm sorry but this is absolutely open and shut. Sabah and Sarawak are not dependencies. They are integral parts of Malaysia. I don't know how this idea got into your head, but you are mistaken. Orange Tuesday (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
At the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories reference you give: Note 3 gives the date that these states ceased to be non-self governing territories:
"Notes:[snip...] 3. In 1963, the Federation of Malaya became Malaysia, following the admission to the new federation of Singapore, Sabah (North Borneo) and Sarawak."
 -  Begoon (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Specifically are

UNITED NATIONS CHARTER CHAPTER XI DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES Article 73 Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end: 1. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses; 2. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement; 3. to further international peace and security; 4. to promote constructive measures of development, to encourage research, and to co-operate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with specialized international bodies with a view to the practical achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes set forth in this Article; and 5. to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General, for informational purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII apply.

may this document be able to give explanations, thank you Her631 (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Everything in this latest list is about Indigenous rights or general UN documents which don't mention the 2 Malaysian states at all. This has nothing to do with these states being dependent territories - please look carefully at what you are providing, and only post references here that specifically relate to your wish to make this addition to this article, and quote the exact part of the document that supports the position. - it is unfair to expect other editors to wade through documents which are unrelated to the discussion. If you want to get consensus here you will need to only post references which clearly show your position. It has already been explained that the generalised UN documents are of no relevance. Nor are references to indigenous rights, or anything else other than something which absolutely specifically states that these 2 states are dependent territories, as of this date.
 -  Begoon (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
maybe you haven't see this documents United Nations Treaty Registered No. 8029, thank you Her631 (talk) 5:13 pm, Today (UTC+10)
I moved your comments to chronological order - please don't post in the middle of other comments - it's confusing. Your latest reference again has nothing to support this addition, it is simply a document from the 1963 treaty negotiation acknowledging that once these states are federated, the rights of their indigenous people will be protected - and again you expect others to read it to work out which portion you believe supports your claim. Frankly, you need to provide something concise, clear, relevant and concrete if you expect any more replies here.
You do not have consensus for this addition. -  Begoon (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
That document explain that the Sabah and Sarawak meet the intent and purpose of the paragraph to this article as a territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a State or as subnational entities in that they are not considered to be part of the motherland or mainland of the governing State., thank you Her631 (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Please don't move comments out of order - other editors need to see that I was responding to that comment. By changing the order you have made this confusing. I have replaced it.  -  Begoon (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I have looked at that document - and see nothing to support what you are saying. Since you have chosen, after repeated requests that you are more clear, not to quote the exact portion of text, alone, to which you are referring I cannot respond further.  -  Begoon (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Since I feel that this discussion is in danger of becoming non-productive, with only 3 contributors, and I do not feel we are making good progress, I have asked for other editors to add their views, by adding an RFC tag to the page. Hopefully that will help to resolve consensus on this, and prevent any further frustration on either side.  -  Begoon (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And now I've removed the tag, since I don't want to encourage any more editors to waste time on this discussion, having seen the results of this investigation. My apologies to anyone who spent time looking at this because of my RFC tag.  -  Begoon (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Other dependecies to add

Fiji: Rotuma ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotuma );
United Kingdom: South Georgia and Sandwich Island ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Georgia_and_the_South_Sandwich_Islands );
Mauritius: Rodrigues, Agalega Islands, and Cargados Carajos Shoals ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Districts_and_dependencies_of_Mauritius );
France: Corsica could also be considered a dependency. It has similar status to Mayotte (territorial collectivity) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corsica );
Guadeloupe: Marie-Galante, Désirade and Îles des Saintes;
New Caledonia: Îles Bélep, Île des Pins, Îles Loyauté;
Grenada: Carriacou and Petit Martinique;
Antigua and Barbuda: Barbuda;
Venezuela: Federal Dependencies of Venezuela ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_dependencies_of_Venezuela );
Colombia: San Andrés & Providencia;
Ecuador: Galapagos Islands;
Spain: Chafarinas, Peñón de Alhucemas and Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera.

If you not agree to include in the list these dependencies, please write here the reason for each of them, thanks. Stanza13 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is now included. All other are not dependencies, they are integral parts of the countries. --maxval (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? For example, Rotuma is called a Dependency of Fiji, the same is for Rodrigues and other: dependency of Mauritius. Stanza13 (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Being called a "dependency" does not make a territory a dependent territory. The article Rotuma, for example, says: "Administratively, Rotuma is fully incorporated into Fiji, but with local government so tailored as to give the island a measure of autonomy greater than that enjoyed by other political subdivisions of Fiji."
Internationally, it is reasonably common for some areas to be given more autonomy than others within the same sovereign state, and Wikipedia does have a list of them. These are not dependent territories in the sense used in this article (though the distinction between the two could perhaps be better defined by the article). Pfainuk talk 11:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What about Hong Kong and Macao? Thoughts?203.210.149.242 (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Spain: Chafarinas, Peñón de Alhucemas and Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera". These are Spanish plazas de soberanía, i.e. integral parts of Spain. They are not dependencies.

Galapagos is a province of Ecuador, not a dependency. San Andrés y Providencia is a department of Colombia, not a dependent territory.

Hong Kong and Macao, strictly speaking, are not dependencies, but integral parts of the PRC. However, there are some ambiguities in their status which may be worth addressing. Ladril (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is no reason why any Dutch, Danish of French territories should be on this list, as legally they are not dependencies. Neither are the Cook Islands nor Niue (but Tokelau is). Ladril (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What about Sabah and Sarawak ? [7] 125.166.174.38 (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
See the 2 discussions below. Sabah and Sarawak are not dependent territories. Already discussed at length.  -  Begoon (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak colonies[8] above criteria are with reference non-selfgoverning territories(1) that is embodied in Article 73, Chapter XI, of the charter. Under Article 73, all UN members "which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, …" This general obligation is then divided into five specific obligations:(a) to "ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses"; (b) to "develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples … "; (c) to "further international peace and security";(d) to "promote constructive measures of development … "; and(e) to "transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitations as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible…." isn't it ? 125.166.161.237 (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
(1) non-self-governing territory is the term used in the United Nations (UN Charter Art 73) system for territories " Whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-goverment" that is all categories of dependent territory, whatever its name (territorial-collectivite, self-goverming territory, ect.) in international law, berofe the onset decolonization, sovereignty over a colony terriory was vested in the metropolitan power, case on North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak on the international scene by making treaties as the administering state were to transmit to the Federation of Malaysia without due account of the political aspiration of the people and assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions according to the particular circumstances of this territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement
also see in treaty between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Federation of Malaya of the article I " The colonies of North Borneo and Sarawak and the State of Singapore shall be federated with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya as the States of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore in accordance with the constitutional instruments annexed to this Agreement and the Federation shall thereafter be called " Malaysia "...... what does it means ? 125.163.44.14 (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
It means that Sabah and Sarawak are not dependent territories. They are States of Malaysia. The walls of impenetrable text, and unrelated references which keep getting added to the various sections on this page will not alter what is, in the end, a simple fact.  -  Begoon (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia

Okay I can't revert these edits anymore without breaking 3RR but Sabah and Sarawk not dependencies of Malaysia. Can someone else step in and deal with this please? Orange Tuesday (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to revert it, but another editor beat me to it. I've watchlisted this article now, since I see this information is being repeatedly added without supporting sources - there was nothing in the linked sources to support it - see also [9]  -  Begoon (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
please see : http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/21/36/00041791.pdf 202.93.37.86 (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Please read the discussion below, and stop submitting links to old UN documents without explaining what in the document supports your position. Explaining what your position actually is would help too - I'm assuming this is another document purported to support Sabah and Sarawak as some kind of dependent territory (Helpful hint - no part of it does support that - they are States of Malaysia). This method of non-argument is starting to feel almost like spamming.  -  Begoon (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Chile on the Map

Why the Pacific islands of Chile are on the map if Chile itself isn't even on the list? For instance, they really shouldn't be on the list, as all the Pacific Islands cited are part of the Valparaiso Region so far. See what is said on the Easter Island article, section of Political Status:

"Easter Island shares with Juan Fernández Islands the sui generis constitutional status of special territory of Chile, granted in 2007. A special charter for the island is currently being discussed: therefore it continues to be considered a province of the Valparaíso Region, containing a single commune." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.36.133.160 (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Australian Territories

I reformulated the note of Australian Territories as it seens relevant. These territories do have a status different from all the others in the list. They are not autonomous (excluded Norfolk), but they don't fit the articles definition of "not considered to be part of the motherland or mainland of the governing State". They are equal to the Capital Territory of Camberra or Jervis Bay, for instance. If they are listed, we are saying that the other territories of Australia should be there (or even the Canadians). This leave to another question: should them really be here? I read the cited references of UN's lists and the Australian Territories were never even there (except Cocos that were on the list, but are not anymore). They are listed separate in the ISO 3166-1 just for statistics purposes, as France's overseas regions are. I vote to deleting them of the list or at least leave the note. Looking foward for others opinions. Gvogas (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The note is fine now. Before you reformulated it, it wasn't very explanatory. I fixed some minor grammar/rw.
I also think you have a fair argument for removing them altogether.
If I had to play devil's advocate I'd point out that the article starts by saying: "A dependent territory, dependent area or dependency is a territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a State." and if we take that strictly (just for reductio ad absurdum) then you could include all the States of most nations - very few have full political independence.
Then on the other side of the coin it says: "A subnational entity typically represents a division of the State proper, while a dependent territory might be an overseas territory that enjoys a greater degree of autonomy. For instance, many of them have more or less separate legal systems from the governing States. Varying among different legal and constitutional traditions, these territories may or may not be considered part of the States." and frankly now it's so woolly as to have little utility.
Personally, I'd leave them in, with the note, purely because they are territories, not States, and they are not part of the mainland, and, because, as an Australian resident I know that they are not generally "lumped in with the mainland" - but that's terribly subjective - and if you look around this talk page you'll see many similar discussions. I certainly wouldn't say that what I'd do is any more "right" than what you recommend.
  • I'd actually go so far as to say that the whole article itself is of dubious merit, without a better definition of just what it is listing, and that perhaps that should be the first point of consensus - clarity of the purpose of the article.  -  Begoon (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Good points. And I agree that a better explanation of the article criteria would be useful. But before that is done, seens to me that the better option is to leave them with the note.Gvogas (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, on my part, anyway. I'll start the other fun discussion below.  -  Begoon (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we precisely define what should be listed here, and why ?

Ok then - in my self appointed devil's advocate role, and following on from the Australia section above.(please glance through it...)

My first try will be problably the simpliest (many times this hels): a political entity that is neither sovereign nor considered fully integrated by its sovereign state (note: this does not includ the de facto sovereign states - there is always some state that claims that they are fully integral part of them).Gvogas (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a good starting point - but I think what we really need to do is get away from what States (or inhabitants of them) claim, and define exactly why this article exists, and what should be included. If we can't do that, then, to my mind, it calls the whole purpose of the article into question. If we can't arrive at a concrete definition, then this would seem to be nothing more than a place to argue about whether State A or Territory B fulfils a condition we're not even sure of. It may well involve rewriting the lead section to be more clear, or it may be that there IS already a clear definition which I'm missing. Regardless, I think it would help to have that clarified.  -  Begoon (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
If I may say, I do think that this article is important, as it discusses an important political situation. I like the definition that Gvogas proposes, this source (http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/138431) says something similar. Under this, the article definitely needs to be looked at again. I think Australia can just be removes, the overseas territories are as much a part of the motherland as the mainland ones (though I'm Australian, so the possibility remains I am biased!). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I've not actually put forward the view that it isn't important. If we can define exactly what it lists it may well be so. The problem is that it isn't well defined at the moment, so you get all sorts of anomalies/discussions like above. Gvogas' definition, I agree, is a good starting point. The problem for me is that it still contains the term "considered" - which can be subjective. I'd like to see something more rigid, that eliminates the problem explained in the second half of his post - otherwise I fear the situation I describe will perpetuate, where this continues to some extent to be a place to "argue" about the status of a State etc. I don't know what that rigid definition should be, though - which is why I posed the question.  Begoontalk 00:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The second part is actually unnecessary, as de facto states and dependencies are completely different. The link I provided can be summed up A dependent territory is a territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a State, and is not part of the countries motherland, although I would replace motherland with integral area to be more precise. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I did say I was playing Devil's advocate here, so: The problem now appears to be "motherland". For instance, intuitively I don't view all the scattered offshore Australian territories as part of any "integral area" or "motherland", and if you reverse define "integral area" to include all the things you don't want to list, then you are making the definition depend on the answer to an extent. I'm really not trying to be difficult, here, but I still find it vague. I see an argument coming on this basis, for instance, again for Sabah/Sarawak - they are States - they are not politically independent. Do you extend the "motherland" because it needs to include all States? Sorry if I'm being thick, here.  Begoontalk 02:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
No you're not being thick, valid questions. The thing is, countries actually define what is their 'motherland' ( I shall use integral area from now on to be more NPOV ) when they have areas that aren't. Australian territories for example, are parts of Australia. Territories of the UK however, are technically not part of the UK. Sabah and Sarawak are by the definition given integral parts of Malaysia, and as someone whos spent a lot of time in Malaysia everyone consideres them to be part of Malaysia, albeit a unique part. Generally, States and other first level administrative divisions are integral areas. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok - so a country defines its own "integral area". That's fair enough, and can be used if we can get our hands on that definition for each country we need to. Can we? Just to continue being annoying - does not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a State - the word State in there can be confusing, because States can be either parts of Nations or Nation States - can that be worded better or am I being too wishful now? Incidentally, I'm not in any doubt on the Malaysia issue - I just offered it as somewhere the definition might be "gamed".  Begoontalk 13:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure definitions for what makes each countries integral areas are out there, or at least there are areas which a country publishes that it does not consider part of its integral area. I think that we should add what is known first, and then search for citations as needed. We could change from just "state" to "sovereign state" which eliminates federal states. I think that would be the best solution. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Should we, then, start by proposing a new lead section with this definition incorporated? Then we can look at the current listings once that's agreed?  Begoontalk 14:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So thats how you make that arrow thingy. Cool. Yes, I think we should definitely add that into the lede for now. I think that means we will have to remove Australia. I also propose moving the Antarctica claims into a new section, due to their abeyance under the Antarctic Treaty system. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
[It's Template:outdent, redirects from Template:od :-) ] Of course, in doing so, we'd need to consider this: The areas separately referred to as non-independent are territories that are disputed, are occupied, have a government in exile or have a non-negligible independence movement. which is currently in the lead.  Begoontalk 14:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I also think, because it's in some ways a major change to the article, we should put a proposed text for the lead here and leave it for comment for a little while before just ploughing on because you and I agree.  Begoontalk 14:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I actually don't understand that last sentence, and think it needs a rewrite by someone who does. Anyway, the lede does seem to mostly agree with us in the second paragraph, it is just the initial sentence that is in dispute. I'll change that to the one proposed earlier, and I guess we will see if there are any objections. I think if there are issues per area we should have independent discussions on the talk page, not in this section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I hate the second paragraph - I think it's woolly and vague. But I'm going to sleep on that. I agree with you on the rest, though, go ahead and be bold - it's late here so I'll check back tomorrow.  Begoontalk 14:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I went through and tried to rewrite the information without removing anything important to the topic. Hopefully the second paragraph will be clearer now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument

I think that this should be split up into its individual territories, as as a whole it is not in itself a territory, and includes an island not a dependency (Palmrya atoll) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Lacking objection, done. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Australia

Is there a source saying that all the external territories we previously listed here are integral parts of Australia? So far I've found a source that says that Norfolk Island definitely is [10] and that the Cocos (Keeling) Islands voted to integrate with Australia in 1984. [11]. Do we have similar sources for Christmas Island, Australian Antarctic Territory, or any of the uninhabited ones? Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

While I can find no source that say they are integrated, I can find no source that says they aren't. Furthermore, they seem to be treated the same as the mainland territories.
The antarctica one is probably undefined, due to the treaty, so I'm not sure how that is treated Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem I have is that the source explicitly says that Cocos (Keeling) integrated with Australia in 1984, despite being a territory since 1955. This would suggest that an external territory can be an integral part of Australia but is not necessarily an integral part of Australia. I'm fine with removing them from the list, but the consensus before now has been that they are dependencies, so we need either:
a) one source which explicitly says all external territories are currently integral parts of Australia; or
b) a source for each territory saying that it is an integral part of Australia.
Until then, I think it would be prudent to restore the previous section, minus Norfolk and Cocos. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if there was a consensus to have them, I think someone simply added them. The really short above discussion is what I acted upon. Besides, why should they be there if there is no source indicating they should be? This source I just found [12] makes no distinction. In fact, it notes the Ashmore and Cartier islands were part of the Northern Territory before, which is undisputedly part of Australia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Well again, we have evidence (from an official government website no less) that the Cocos (Keeling) Islands were only integrated into Australia in 1984, despite being an external territory since 1955. So we can't assume that all external territories are automatically integral parts of Australia. The CIA World Factbook, Britannica, and the US State Department's website all describe the external territories as dependencies, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary (like we currently have for Norfolk and Cocos) we should list them like that. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking into it the Cocos Keeling Islands were a dependency before, as they were practically a monarchy under the a family whose name I can't spell. As soon as the family was removed, they became integrated.
Alright, per verifiability I will not revert an edit for the ones we don't have information on. I'm sure they're not though, and I'll be keeping an eye out for information about that ;) Thanks for the discussion! (And place the citations you found in the text when you add it) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to be back so soon, but should the Ashmore and Cartier islands be included? Source above:
"Responsibility for the Ashmore and Cartier islands was accepted from Britain in 1933, with administration being transferred from the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth in 1978 as part of the latter's achievement of self-government. Administration occurs under the Ashmore & Cartier Islands Acceptance Act 1933."
So they were part of the Northern territory, which is part of Australia. I don't see how they become not part of Australia once they were separated. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

More discussion is needed on this before they are removed from the list. Furthermore, a good authoratative source explicitly stating that these are similar to the mainland territories should be required. This page from the government, one of many stating the same thing, lists all external territories of Australia; it includes Norfolk and the Cocos Islands. Nightw 15:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Australian government treats them as not part of the Australia for Immigration purposes, for example someone that lands on the Heard and McDonald islands is not treated as landing on Australia but on an external possesion of australia. The situation arose from large quantaties of refugees landing on Amshore and Carter islands in attempts to get refugee status.XavierGreen (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica

Should Argentine Antarctica and Antártica be added as dependencies? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

They're part of Tierra del Fuego Province (Argentina) and Antártica Chilena Province respectively, so no. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Special municipalities

Special municipalities of Netherlands should not be on this list, they have the same status as for example French overseas departments, No reason to include them on the list. --maxval (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Australian Coral Sea Islands

You cannot say this territory is completely uninhabited, since Willis Island has indeed a small population MaXiMiLiAnO 18:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

That is correct, thus it'll get fixed now. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about this. 4 permanent scientists? I understand the technicalities of it all, but I'm not so sure that 4 scientists makes it inhabited. Is antarctica inhabited? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Officially it's uninhabited [13]. Night w2 (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well "a manned weather station has been in operation on Willis Island since 1921" AND it is under the same governmental department that oversees other inhabited islands. So as long as even just one small island has a permanent group (like on Pitcairn Island), then I'd say yes.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There's an obvious difference between Pitcairn's population and 4 (3?) scientists who probably won't spend a third of their lives on this weather station. And the government officially designates and describes it as an "uninhabited territory". It's fine to further describe its "population" in its article, but here, where we categorise the entries, it looks ridiculous in the inhabited section. We should categorise according to official status. Otherwise, there are about half-a-dozen permanently manned stations in the Antarctic territory, and the French TAAF and U.S. Midway Atoll and Wake Island would also qualify as "inhabited", as would the U.S.-claimed Seranilla Bank, which is manned by Colombians. Night w2 (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Fine then, if it has been designated as such, so be it. Although they should have some note or comment that some of those places do have a permanent presence on them. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. Night w2 (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

List or not?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Rennell435 (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dependent territory → List of dependent territories – Methinks this be a list. Though we don't seem to have a regular article on what a dependent territory is, so the curent title might be the best title. This is just an exercise to gather other opinions. An option might be to split off the list on its own, leaving this article describing the generic term. Rennell435 (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the title needs "List of" for the article to be a list. The problem with describing the generic term is that, well, there's no real description for what it means anymore. Half the entities we have listed do not fit the definition we have in the lead. The whole article needs rewriting. I doubt however that it will at any point be long enough that the list needs to be split off. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
You're right, the title probably doesn't need to have the word "list" in it for it to be a list. I suppose I'll withdraw this request, at least until the article expands a little more. Rennell435 (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RFC on Cook Islands and Niue

RFC opened on their status here: [[14]]. Editors are invited to participate. Ladril (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

China et al

In regards to the recent edit war, I agree with Eofreedom. Our current inclusion is meaningless. If we were to include only the official dependent territories, we'd just have BOTs, US territories, and Tokelau+Ross (with possible Australian inclusions). If we have the supposed integral Greenland, why not Hong Kong and Macau? Inclusiveness with explanation is probably the best option. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Inclusiveness with an explanation is a can of worms for a dozen other claims. HK/MO are coterminous territory, integral and traditional parts of China that became European colonies. Now they are Chinese again. They have limited and time dependent self-government as they re-integrate politically and socially from the colonial status. They aren't dependent territories. I don't know why HK POV pushers are so determined to use this status but it was well defined why they were excluded before the edit war. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The definition of dependent territories is very grey. Explanations would clarify for readers. HK/MO are on the CIAs dependent territory list. The alternative is removing the Danish French and Dutch territories, as they are all integral (and probably far more integrated than HK or MO). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see it. The Danish, French, and Dutch territories aren't similar. None of them are coterminous territory, and they are specifically defined as separate from the European power. We do list and link HK/MO (with other territories) on a different article. Readers aren't left lacking for an explanation. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
All are legally full parts of their respective countries. The Danish territories are represented in the Danish parliament, the French territories in the French parliament. The Dutch territories are equally part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands with the European part, with all constitutions falling under the oversight of the Kingdoms charter. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I think Hong Kong and Macau are dependent territories they seem more separate than the others here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I think only those territories should be listed that are officially considered as dependent: Australia, NZ, USA, UK and Norway territories. All other cases should be listed with an explanation why they are NOT on the list. Now the list is based on a totally arbitrary point of view. --maxval (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dependent territories map

The dependent territories map used on this article is in many ways outdated, vague, and inaccurate, and is frequently contradicted in the article itself. A better map should either be found or this one should be edited. Liam987(talk)contributions 12:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposition for a new page content!

I have a new page content proposition. This way we can avoid the discussions about what is a dependency and what is not. You can see it at User:Maxval/deps - feel free to make any corrections, this is only a preliminary version. Tables must be corrected, as formatting is not very well. Also the map should be changed. --maxval (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the only difference the separation of the clearcut dependencies with those who are for all intents and purposes dependencies but legally aren't and so cause this disputes? If so, I'm all for it. CMD (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I oppose, your proposed list includes polities that are clearly not dependencies in it.74.105.134.233 (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The actual list also includes many territories that are not dependencies, as e. g. Saint Martin, Aruba, Greenland. In my list the purpose of the "other entities" is to show the difference between real dependencies and pseudo-dependencies. --maxval (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems like a good balance between the legal differentiation and not ignoring sources like the world factbook. CMD (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I made the change. I hope other editors like it. --maxval (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I like it, but there needs to be clarification about what should be listed as other entities. If there isn't, there's nothing to stop someone from adding Alaska or Scotland or Flanders or something ridiculous like that. The French départments should all be removed. Liam987 14:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed the french departments, but I would actually argue that some items on the list are dependencies. Each item needs an explanation of why they are not dependencies. Liam987 14:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I think its not a good idea to remove the French departments. In many sources there are listed separately, however they are integral parts of France. But lets see an example. Saint Barthelemy or Saint Pierre and Miquelon are also integral parts. I see no difference between them and Martinique or Guadeloupe. But I we remove all the entries that are legally parts of the country, then also all Dutch, Chinese, etc entries should be removed. Where is the difference? --maxval (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The French departments are not only legally part of France, but are fully integrated in the running of normal everyday France. They participate in national elections etc. on the equal basis of the other French regions. Their only special quirks, so far as I know, are those necessitated by their huge distance, like exemptions from certain EU laws and special Visa requirements. CMD (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but this is valid for all French overseas entities, not only for departments. Please tell me what is the exact difference between e.g. Martinique and Saint Martin, which makes the first "integrated" and the last "non-integrated"! --maxval (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
A major difference is that while the regions are required to implement all items of French law, and their residents are part of the French social network, the collectivities have a huge degree of autonomy. CMD (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, for example, Réunion is part of the EU and uses the euro, but Wallis and Futuna are not part of the EU and don't use the Euro. Liam987 13:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I am skeptic about that. You want to say that e.g. Saint Martin stopped impleteing all French law and its residents stopped being part of the French social network, when Saint Martin became "independent" of Guadeloupe? And the currency doesnt have any relevance here. Saint Martin uses the euro. And there are many examples when an "integral" territory uses a different currency. (maxval (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC))
I don't know if it did, but it has the right to. There's not a great deal of consistency among French overseas collectivities; they're grouped together as they're not regions. French constitution (specifically sections 73/74): "In the overseas departments and regions, statutes and regulations shall be automatically applicable. They may be adapted in the light of the specific characteristics and constraints of such communities...The Overseas territorial communities to which this article applies shall have a status reflecting their respective local interests within the Republic." CMD (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau

Hong Kong and Macau are most defiantly definitely dependancies of the People's Rep. of China. I intend to add those unless someone can provide refs proving they are not. Liam987 08:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

They're often treated separately from the main PRC. Quite a few places are legally integral. I thought we had a rough idea at User:Maxval/deps? CMD (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I guess the most striking evidence that these SARs are more or less 90% self-governing is that they have different political systems and laws from the mainland. In addition, travel documents (e.g. foreigners need to use their passports when crossing the border) are needed when traveling between the three areas. I believe Maxval's proposal is a good one and should be given the go-ahead for those content additions. Raiolu (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Seems like a good proposal to me, though a lot of the content will need to be changed, but overall good. And I'm still not convinced that Hong Kong and Macau are integrated.Liam987 15:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
That is an excellent proposal and I think there's a consensus for implementing it immediately in its current form. Regarding China, the Basic Law of Hong Kong contains two passages which clearly indicate that it's an integral territory. "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China." (Art. 1) and "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be a local administrative region of the People's Republic of China, which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government." (Art. 12) Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Australia

The last time we talked about changing the list we determined that Norfolk Island [15] and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands [16] are both integral parts of Australia. Barring any evidence to the contrary, it's probably reasonable to treat the rest of Australia's territories as integral as well and move them to the second section when maxval's proposal is implemented. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The proposal has already been implemented. This shift makes sense, and we'll have the explanatory text either way. CMD (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Moving Australia to the 2nd section makes sense. (maxval (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC))
They are not considered integral parts of australia by the government, see the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Act and the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Provisions) Act. The very definition of a dependent territory is one that is not fully integrated into its parent state and has seperate laws that hold it apart in a subsidiary manner to the parent state just as the australian external territories do.XavierGreen (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Surely if they had to be excised, then the default was there inclusion? Surely the same would also apply to the non-departmental French territories? CMD (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Norfolk Island is outside the migration zone too but we have a government source that states unambiguously that it "has been an integral part of the Commonwealth of Australia since 1914".[17] Here's a source which comments on the excision amendments, saying "These amendments do not affect Australia’s sovereignty over those islands. The islands remain integral parts of Australia." [18]. These are are direct and unambiguous statements, and unless you have contradictory evidence that's as strongly worded I think we should keep the Australian territories in the second section. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The sovereignty of all dependent territories is held by the parent country, which is what defines them as dependent territories. The statements in that source are very ambiguous, what islands are being referred to in it all islands or just the islands mentioned in the amendment (of which none are territories beyond the coral sea islands). The statements about norfolk island seem clear enough, and i believe there is a case to be made for the fact that Christmas island, Norfolk Island, and the Cocos island are integral parts in the same manner that a case can be made for the french overseas collectivities. However given that the second section of the page states that all polities there are fully integrated into their home states, all australian external territories fail to meet its inclusion criteria since they are not fully integrated into their home states as is shown via australian immigration law. But the remaining Australian territories are not integrated at all and i have seen no evidence that they are.XavierGreen (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The page is clearly defining the concept of excised offshore places generally in order to explain the consequences of adding the Coral Sea Islands to the list, meaning Christmas Island, Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and the Coral Sea Islands. That's all the external territories except for two, and I can't see why they would have a different status. Anyway, you still haven't provided any reliable source that backs up your initial edit, and unless you can do that it should be reverted, consensus or not. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Should we request semi-protection?

There has been persistent "unhelpful" (well, more than unhelpful) changes mostly by IPs to what is listed as a dependent territory here. I was wondering if anyone would object to a request for semi-protection for this page?  Liam987(talk) 18:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't hurt to ask for it, but it'll be ultimately up to an admin to do so.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Any admins here willing to protect it? -  Liam987(talk) 23:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Persistant, but not extremely frequent. I don't think it's time for semiprotection (... but I am not an admin), but it might be wise to leave explanatory comments on the IPs talkpage to i) indicate the problem (they probably didn't find the talkpage/edit summaries etc yet and ii) to be able to escalate to serious warnings if they don't stop... L.tak (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Take a look through the recent history of the page. The Netherlands' ABC and SSS islands, the French overseas regions and overseas collectivities, Hong Kong and Macau, and other entities repeatedly determined on this talk page to not be dependencies are re-added over and over again to the article.  Liam987(talk) 18:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to request, but as I said, I think it's not that frequent and also they are not vandalism but generally good faith additions (we simply have no referenced definition so it stays a shady business what to include and what not); so the disadvantage (not everyone can edit) does not outweigh the advantage (stability) in my opinion... L.tak (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

French Southern and Antarctic Lands

What makes the French Southern and Antarctic Lands not a dependency?  Liam987(talk) 19:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it is legally an integral part of the French Republic. (maxval (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC))
Do you have a reference for that? The only place I see that said is on territoire d'outre-mer, where the statement is lacking a ref.  Liam987(talk) 18:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
All French territories, from Paris to Polynesia, are part of France per its constitution (Important bits found around articles 72-74). CMD (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
What about Clipperton Island?  Liam987(talk) 19:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Article 72-3, exactly the same as the Southern and Antarctic Lands. CMD (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
More specifically, point (4) of 72-3 (Statute of the Oversea Territories), "The legislative system and special organisation of the French Southern and Antarctic Territories and Clipperton are determined by statute." CMD (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Map

I have removed the map because it is very misleading and inaccurate.  Liam987(talk) 18:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we need a new map. --maxval (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That's an extrordinary decision, to have no map. The map used to be pretty accurate to my recollection. Where is the old map stored so that it can be checked out? "Very misleading and inaccurate" sounds like too strong a statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.2.14.199 (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Historical dependent territories

Dependent territories that are now sovereign are listed in List of former sovereign states - Section: Former colonies, possessions, protectorates and territories, but there is no list of former dependent territories that are no longer sovereign. We could add that here or create a new article like Former dependencies or Former dependent territories. -- Beland (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Chile

The faraway Pacific islands of Chile may be special territories, but do any sources consider them dependencies? CMD (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If you cannot find any source that lists them as dependencies, feel free to remove. It must be noted, though, that designating them as "special" was done with the intention of enacting immigration and residency laws so that residing there is only allowed to their native populations, not to all Chilean nationals. This arrangement, similar to that in place for Norfolk Island, is what prompted me to add them. Ladril (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Interesting point, but similar laws exist for other areas like the Galapagos and Sarawak. They'd perhaps make their own nice list, but I've not seen them listed as dependencies. I'll keep an eye out for sources though, this page could in general use more. CMD (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
OPPOSE - Easter Island and Juan Fernández Islands are not dependent territories at all, but are integral parts of Chile. Yes, recent amendments in the constitution grant them status as "special territories", but the most striking indication that they are not dependent territories are that they are part of the region Valparaíso Region, which is a first-level administrative division as one of the 15 regions of Chile. If they are dependent territories they would not be under one of the first-level administrative divisions of the country. In essence, you may consider them as dependent territories of Valparaiso Region, but not of Chile. Some further hints point to them not being dependencies are that they do not have their own currencies or ISO code. cchow2 (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Iraqi Kurdistan's level of autonomy

I would like to invite editors to comment at RfC proposal on Iraqi Kurdistan's level of autonomy, essentially resolving whether Iraqi Kurdistan should or shouldn't be added to the "other Dependent territories" under Asia topic.GreyShark (dibra) 18:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Trick for distinguishing internal areas from external posessions

It's not always obvious whether a territory is considered a integral part of a country or an external dependency. One trick you can use is to go to the official statistics agency for the country and work out which areas they include to give the population of the country. For example:

  • French oveseas regions are included in the population total for France. but the overseas collectivities and New Caledonia are excluded
  • Australia includes Chrismas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in its population total, but excludes Norfolk Island
  • New Zealand includes the Chatham Islands and Kermadec Islands in its population total, but excludes Niue, the Cook Islands and Tokelau
  • Norway is confusing, they seem to count people in Svalbard or Jan Mayen as if they still lived at their last mainland address (if I read the commentary correctly)

Ben Arnold (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Just want to note, this is often not true... and therefore not a very good "trick" :P. Particularly federations, or pseudo-federations might exclude integral territories from statistics because a territory can be integral territory but fully self-governing (thus not of concern to the central government), as in the case of Australia and France. Or just be unpopulated and therefore not mentioned. Generally speaking, its best to look at the country's constitution, or better still a reliable secondary interpretation of this. Anyway, I think the page is pretty accurate at the moment. It's surprising that there are so few true "dependent territories", although then again, maybe not considering the distinction is irrelevant in international law. Rob984 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue are not territories

We should avoid using the word territory in describing the relationship between the Cook Islands/Niue and New Zealand because it incorrectly implies that New Zealand maintains a degree of legal authority. New Zealand has little more legal authority to make laws for the Cook Islands than Britain did to make laws for New Zealand up until 1986. Both the Cook Islands and Niue are commonly referred to simply as countries and are often treated as full countries diplomatically.

I'm not arguing that they should be removed from this list. (It's true that neither country is fully sovereign in some hard-to-pin down sense.) I'm just saying that we should be careful about the language we use.

Ben Arnold (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually they should be removed because their relationship to New Zealand is equivalent to the relationship between the US and Palau, the FSM, and the Marshall Islands. The status of Niue and the Cook Islands is already explained in the article Associated State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.227.129 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The relationship is very different from that of the USA with Palau etc. CMD (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dependent_territory/Archive_1&oldid=1092066340"