Talk:Dependent territory/Archive 2

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Jan Mayen

Are there any sources that call Jan Mayen a dependency, or treat it as such? Not all integral territories are listed here, or we'd add every area in each country. CMD (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope, and the adjacent explanation is completely wrong (it has no special status, is not subject to any treaties with Russia, is militarised, and is fully subject to Norwegian law, including tax and the EEA). I removed it but was reverted by Aotearoa with no reason. Care to justify that Aotearoa? Rob984 (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

In this entry a source has been attached – you've deleted it without providing any sources for your point of view. Moreover, Jan Mayen is listed as territory (with Svalbard) in ISO 3166 and by the United Nations Statistics Division; CIA World Factbook lists it as separate territory, as well as [U.S. Department of State]. So, if you propose to delist this territory, first you should discusse this issue. Aotearoa (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The source simply distinguishes Jan Mayen from the dependent territories of Norway. It does state, in relation to Norway, Jan Mayen has the same status as Svalbard, meaning both are integral territory, in contrast to dependencies (see context of statement in the source). It doesn't claim Jan Mayen has any special status. It also states:

However, the Svalbard Treaty does not apply to Jan Mayen, which means that Norwegian jurisdiction can be exercised without any considerations concerning restrictions contained in that Treaty. Or, to put it in another way: The position of the Norwegian government with regard to international research operations or any other kind of operations on Jan Mayen, is not affected by any specific obligations or restrictions in terms of international agreements or any other instrument of international law.

Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20140104210815/http://www.ogskagestad.info/attachments/File/JanMayenSciFocus04.pdf

So the currently explanation is misleading given the context, as it states

"Svalbard is subject to an international treaty with some limits to Norwegian sovereignty."

Then directly following:

"The legal status of Jan Mayen is basically the same as the Svalbard archipelago"

Having an ISO code does not imply any assumptions regarding the status of a territory. The overseas regions of France (fully subject to French law) all have ISO codes. Clipperton Island does not (not fully subject to French law). Jan Mayen and Svalbard are two entirely separate territories. ISO codes seem to be assigned to any isolated territory, regardless of other factors. Again, for the CIA World Factbook, French overseas regions are listed, which have no autonomy.

I only reverted, because you did not explain you reason for reverting.

Rob984 (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I made some changes. There is only a dead link for Jan Mayen and there are no sources that say it has the same status as Svalbard. Although it is generally regarded as a dependent territory of Norway. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The only characteristics of being a dependent territory is the grouping with Svalbard rather than Norway in ISO, and the distance from the rest of Norway. It is otherwise just an uninhabited island of Norway, fully subject to Norwegian law. So what actually is this "Lists of other entities"? Svalbard is also not actually autonomous. Besides a unique tax status and being subject to international treaties, it is otherwise indifferent from the rest of Norway. On the other hand, the autonomous regions of Portugal are fairly autonomous, and also quite some distance from the rest of Portugal, but lack an ISO code. Northern Ireland is subject to international agreements (Good Friday Agreement), including limits on militarisation, and is also fairly autonomous. However it is quite close to the rest of the United Kingdom and also lacks an ISO code. So does "other entities" mean any other entities remotely similar to a dependent territory, or should there be a slightly more strict criteria? Rob984 (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hebel, in response to your edit summary, Svalbard is an internal territory of Norway plainly because under Norwegian law, it is part of the Kingdom of Norway, rather than an external territory under Norwegian sovereignty. In practice, this doesn't really mean anything. For example, Puerto Rico is a dependent territory and does not form part of the United States, however comes fully under US federal law, like the 50 states. Conversely, the Faroe Islands are a integral territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, yet are entirely self governing, other than international matters. Under international law, there is no distinction, and dependent territories are still considered the direct responsibility of the administering state. Rob984 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Rob984, you just interpret some formal regulation about Jan Mayan, and this is only your interpretation (that’s why this is OR). Instead of interpretation we should check haw Jan Mayen is treated in reliable sources (encyclopedias, lists of dependent territories, and so on) – if majority of sources treat it as territory, than we should keep it on the list, otherwise Jam Mayen should be delisted. Aotearoa (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dependent territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dependent territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Jan Mayen and Palmyra Atoll

In his massive revision to this article Chipmunkdavis removed both Palmyra Atoll and Jan Mayen from the USA and Norway listings. However, I have since found that the following two sources list each of these entities as 'Dependencies' and 'Dependent Areas' respectively: [1], [2]. Additionally, Jan Mayen is listed as a part of the 'territories of Norway' here: [3]. Should these two entries be restored? I have noticed that the table for France has also now had its Overseas department and regions delisted as well, but this is less problematic as these areas are equivalent in status to that of Hawaii. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The Britain and France entries were reversions of recent changes. There is no definitive list for these sorts of things. The US sources are useful and have been taken into consideration in the past. You'll note there are other entries in them that we also don't include here. (The EU source isn't working.) I included an explanation of Palmyra Atoll in the text above the US table, something similar may be useful for Jan Mayen. The French overseas regions are also similarly noted in the prose. CMD (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

True, the state.gov source lists several entries that are not included here (such as spratley islands and western sahara). However, the world factbook has precisely NO other entries listed within it that are excluded from this list EXCEPT for Jan Mayen and Palmyra Atoll. Additionally, the Jan Mayen entry is backed up by content in the EU source (see here if you are not able to access it in your region: [4]). - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

In fact we have even listed everything here that the state.gov page lists, with the exception of the Paracel Islands, the Spratley Islands, Western Sahara, Jan Mayen, and Palmyra Atoll. Are you really suggesting we should equate Jan Mayen, and Palmyra Atoll with those three entries? Parcel Islands, Spratley Islands, and Western Sahara are areas with massive international disputes and competing claims.
Note: The french internal stuff (French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Reunion) is also included but it is explicitly stated within that they basically shouldn't be and are only included for the convenience of the reader. Antartica is listed as an entry (and we include this as well), however, we have broken it down into it's individual claims/subdivisions.
So I ask you, what makes Jan Mayen and Palmyra Atoll special so that they are excluded from our list? To my eyes the sources clearly equate them with our other entries. Why Parcel Islands, Spratley Islands, Western Sahara, and Antartica are included as well in this one reliable source is odd to me, but you have to be joking if you compare the sovereignty status of these four situations to anything else listed in the source. The dependency relationship of Jan Mayen and Palmyra Atoll to their respective states is clear based on these RSs, and these territories are not at all in dispute. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Those sources happen to be wrong at least in the case of Palmyra. Palmyra is part of the U.S., having been incorporated into the country as part of the Territory of Hawaii, according to American law. TFD (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously telling me that these sources directly from the US government and the EU are just "wrong"? - Wiz9999 (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The Department of the Interior website says, "On April 30, 1900, Hawaii (including Palmyra Atoll) became an incorporated U.S. territory....So, when Hawaii (excluding Palmyra Atoll) was admitted as one of the several States, Palmyra remained and continues to remain an incorporated U.S. territory."[5] As explained in ft 202 of Defining Status: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States Territorial Relations, incorporated means to be part of the U.S., according to Downes v. Bidwell (1901).

According to Western Europe 2003, p. 518, Jan Meyan "was made an integral part of the Kingdom of Norward by the Jan Mayen Act of 1930....During the Second World War Jan Mayen remained the only part of Norway under Norwegian control."[6]

TFD (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It's worth considering what the sources are for. Both the US and EU are simple reference lists/guides to go along with their foreign office publications. They're not meant to be constitutional guides. In the EU list, they've clearly included entries to explain each ISO code. CMD (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that Palmyra Atoll is not an "incorporated territory" that status is clear, what is also clear is that the US considers both of these territories "dependent" territories. To suggest that being incorporated means that the territory is NOT dependent is WP:SYNTH and I will tolerate it no longer. I am restoring both entries to this list and Palmyra Atoll to the bullet on the list of sovereign states list as well. Unless either one of you can provide a credible reliable source that specifically states these are not dependencies they will remain on this list. Do not revert this. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

We have clear and reliable sources, with texts, saying these territories are integral parts of their respective countries. This is the main subject of this article, as noted clearly in this article's introduction. This is a specific definition, which may not be the same as what is included in the the source lists provided. This point is made clear by the fact that all of the lists are different, and some of these include entries that are also not included here. CMD (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This article defines dependent territories as "politically outside the controlling state's integral area." Since, as you agree, Palmyra is an incorporated (i.e., integral) part of the U.S, it does not belong in the article. TFD (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

After reading the entirety of the GAO.gov document, provided by Chipmunkdavis in his edit on the list of sovereign states article, there is nothing inside of it that states that Palmyra Atoll is NOT a dependency. There is plenty of mention of how the constitution applies "in full" to this territory in various parts of the document, and a sentence and a footnote on page 47 that mentions how it is an "incorporated territory". However, I repeat that the applicability of the constitution and the "incorporated" status is absolutely not in dispute. It is widely known, and also correctly stated as such within this article. What I have been repeatedly disputing with you is that the use of these two concepts to infer that the territory is NOT a dependency is WP:SYNTH, and until you address this issue directly or find a highly reliable source that states directly that Palmyra Atoll is not a dependency it will remain as such within this article. This has nothing to do with these territories being "integral parts" of their administrating states, but everything to do with these territories being "dependent" lands of their administrating states. The two terms are not equivalent. The fact that the lede states that dependencies "remains politically outside the controlling state's integral area" is a completely unsourced statement that is never stated in any of the five references used in the lede (and yes, I checked each of these using archived copies of these pages as all but one have subsequently been removed from the web). The use of the "integral" term should thus be removed from this document's lede as it is also unsourced.
An interesting side note about the GAO.gov article is that it mentions on page 37 that federal tax is something that is imposed at the discretion of the federal government, of which it currently chooses to not impose on the insular areas (including Palmyra), meaning that this distinguishes it from the district of columbia in a somewhat transient manner. Additionally, and perhaps more intriguingly, it also states on page 30 & 31 that right to vote in presidential elections was specifically granted to the federal district of columbia, but this was never done for any of the insular areas (including Palmyra). Meaning that the constitution does not apply in full with regards to this specific 'voting rights' aspect to the territory (again distinguishing it from DC). However, the courts have repeatedly found that the constitution does apply in full to Palmyra, thus contradicting this circumstance. It is something that could potentially be legally challenged, but practically this will not be done since no one actually lives on Palmyra, just an interesting legal contradiction. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't find a definition for dependent territory. However, Webster's defines "dependent" as "subject to another's jurisdiction//a dependent territory". So it would not include areas such as Palmyra which are part of the U.S. Do you have another definition? What separates a dependent territory from any other type of territory? How can a territory that is part of the U.S. also be a dependency of the U.S.?

The reference to insular areas on page 37 of the GAO report is to "the five insular areas," which does not include Palmyra. As the laws of the U.S. apply everywhere in the U.S., income tax law would apply to anyone who took up residence in Palmyra.

The original U.S. constitution only provided members of both houses of Congress to be elected from states. No territory inside the United States has ever elected members of Congress, but no one would say that Arizona was a dependent territory before it became the 48th state in 1912. No one claimed for example that Barry Goldwater (b. 1909) was not born in the U.S.

The courts have never in fact found that the constitution does not apply in full in Palmyra.

TFD (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

What separates a dependent territory from any other type of territory? THAT right there is the fundamental question! There doesn't seem to be very good criteria for this, but to assume "integrated" as the sole criteria for this is absolutely not reflected in any sourced material. Which is what I have been saying from the beginning here.
The reference to insular areas on page 37 of the GAO report is to "the five insular areas," which does not include Palmyra. I see nowhere that this is stated as such. The statement is made within the "Five Insular Areas - An Update" chapter, yes, but it is under the section: "Applicability of Constitutional Provisions to U.S. Insular Areas", of which the very first section is: "Fundamental Constitutional Rights Apply to All Territories", the latter sections all follow on from this first subsection. However, this was just an aside comment I was making anyway, it doesn't really relate to issue at hand.
The original U.S. constitution only provided members of both houses of Congress to be elected from states. No territory inside the United States has ever elected members of Congress, but no one would say that Arizona was a dependent territory before it became the 48th state in 1912. No one claimed for example that Barry Goldwater (b. 1909) was not born in the U.S. I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this, as I was talking about presidential elections specifically and this had nothing to do with congress.
The courts have never in fact found that the constitution does not apply in full in Palmyra. I agree completely, that is what I have been saying. The exceptions of taxes and voting are interesting, as they contradict this ruling, but they clearly would not hold up against the court rulings of the constitution applying in full.
Definitions of dependent territory/dependent:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dependent - subject to another's jurisdiction // a dependent territory, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dependent_territory - A territory (such as a country, province, colony, etc.) controlled by another, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dependent - subordinate; subject: a dependent territory, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dependent - [nothing on territory].
Also, I will now be listing this at WP:DRN (here), as I keep getting reverted by the both of you despite the violation of WP:SYNTH and I am now of the belief that we will simply not agree without some kind of mediation. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I still do not understand your definition. Why don't you consider Hawaii or DC or Staten Island or Death Valley or DC to be dependent terrtories in not because they are part of the U.S.?

Citizens living in D.C. may vote for electors for president because of the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution of 1960 which provided them with that right. Previously only residents of states could do that and the right has never been extended to territories of the United States, including Arizona until it became a state.

TFD (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I still do not understand your definition. Why don't you consider Hawaii or DC or Staten Island or Death Valley or DC to be dependent terrtories in not because they are part of the U.S.? It is quite simple really ... They are NOT SOURCED as such! Everything else we have on this list IS IN THE SOURCES as being "dependent areas"/"dependent territories"/"dependencies" (including Jan Mayen and Palmyra Atoll). - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC) edited on 01:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

With regards to your second statement, that is my point exactly! DC residents have the right to vote for president because of the twenty third amendment. Hypothetical Palmyra Atoll residents do not have this right, making that territory constitutionally different to DC (despite the court rulings). However, I would not expect such a situation to last long were Palmyra to suddenly gain inhabitants, as the courts have been clear about the constitution applying in full there. It doesn't affect any part of this discussion really, it is just an interesting observation I am making. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

How do you know that your sources are using the same definition as this article and as each other or are accurate? That can only be determined with secondary sources that provide definitions and cite sources. Or do you suggest that the lead should be changed to say, "This is a list of all countries that have been described in at least one tertiary source as dependent territories? (Incidentally, no need to repeat what I write, I can read my own postings myself.) ::Incidentally, the constitution makes no provisions for any territory other than states and D.C. to provide electors, whether or not those territories lie within the U.S. No territory has ever been allowed to choose electors.

Anyway, the sources that say Palmyra is incorporated are better than the sources that say it is a dependent territory, and they are backed up with legal opinion including a Supreme Court judgment.

TFD (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

But this still has not addressed the WP:SYNTH issues. Your claim of your source being "better" (a very subjective/POV claim I will point out) has little to do with equating the concept of "incorporated" to that of "dependent". The relevancy of the definition/criteria of "dependent territory" that each RS is using to select entries on their respective lists is less important. As the RS's are RS's, and we MUST take their word for it and assume they are accurate, unless directly contradicted by another RS (of which the provided RS's describing the "incorporated" status do not do). The criteria the RS uses is entirely up to each entity/organisation creating the sourced list, since if the source is reliable then the criteria would be reliable as well. It is not up to editors here on en.wikipedia to decide which entries are granted the "dependent territory" status, that is entirely up to the sources. Or will you once again to tell me that the reliably sourced information from the US government and the EU are just "wrong"?
Yes, I absolutely do think there is an argument to be made to change the lede to something more appropriate. The example you gave is a little restrictive, but regardless, what this article is really lacking is a thorough set of criteria (WP:LISTCRITERIA) that definitively describes the sourced and appropriate content of the list (for examples of lists with a decent set of criteria see List of sovereign states#Criteria for inclusion and List of transcontinental countries#Criteria for inclusion). The current Dependent territory#Summary section of this article does not really serve much purpose, and it is just short summarized version of the article anyway. It would be better if the first sub section in this article were instead to be utilized for the purposes of narrowing the content of the article to the relevantly sourced information. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

There are clear criteria for this article: one is that a territory be dependent on a state and that it not be part of that state. Although dependent territory is not a defined term, both territory and dependent are. As ordinarily defined, Palmyra is not dependent on or outside the U.S. CMD has presented a high quality source that Palymyra is part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

There is lengthy federal case law that says that Palmyra Atoll is an incorporated territory of the United States and thus fully integrated into the United States and as such the US Constitution fully applies. The laws of the former Territory of Hawaii have been held to be the law in Palmyra.XavierGreen (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The DOI website Wiz9999 linked to in Talk:List of sovereign states explicitly links Palmyra with the states and D.C., noting "the Congress made the U.S. Constitution and all U.S. laws applicable to Hawaii (including Palmyra Atoll) as elsewhere in the several States and the District of Columbia. On April 30, 1900, Hawaii (including Palmyra Atoll) became an incorporated U.S. territory. (In corporation has been consistently interpreted as a perpetual state. Once incorporated, an area cannot be de-incorporated.) So, when Hawaii (excluding Palmyra Atoll) was admitted as one of the several States, Palmyra remained and continues to remain an incorporated U.S. territory."

Regarding the lists provided, none provide a definition. The most limited list, the World Factbook, defines its contents as "nonindependent entities associated in some way with a particular independent state", which is no doubt purposefully vague. I also note that, despite Western Sahara being on both the Department of State and EU lists, and despite us having no source saying it is not a dependent territory, it has not been added here. This illustrates quite clearly that the lists need to be considered in the light of much more detailed sources. CMD (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that the concept of dependent territories as defined in this article exists under international law. It's only when there are permanent populations that it becomes an issue. Even then, there are exceptions such as Puerto Rico. Otherwise, recognition is of territory under the sovereignty of states, regardless of their status in domestic law. TFD (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

No, what is illustrated clearly is that this list is in need of well defined criteria, instead of some vague OR statements made in the lede. Nothing you have stated about the DOI article addresses my pointing out of the WP:SYNTH issue, and I STILL have yet to see an argument made against it from any of you. @TFD that is precisely why we need good criteria, based on reliable sources. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The criteria are clear, however no sources are possible since the concept is not defined anywhere. However, the words dependent and territory are clearly defined. Dependent means to be under the sovereignty of a state of which one is not a part and territory is a piece of land. ::On the other hand, is there any need for this article?

TFD (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The concept of a "dependent territory" meets notability guidelines, and the term is still used. What we have in the intro as it stands matches historical usage. I don't have a comprehensive study or anything, but the term appears in the UNs Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in "Welcoming the emergence in recent years of a large number of dependent territories into freedom and independence", and is still used on the UN committee on decolonization website as a synonym for the more long-winded "Non-Self-Governing Territories". The definitions for this committee are almost the same as what we have here, as territories are determined not to be dependent by 1) becoming integrated into the main country, 2) becoming independent, or 3) becoming an associated state of some kind. 3 is perhaps where our article/list differs, and that is for good reason as it's such a purposefully nebulous criteria. (And while that is the clear criteria, the decision of what entities fit these criteria for the purposes of the UN is entirely political, and so should be expected to differ from here where other sources are considered.) CMD (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The significant difference is that the UN implicitly did not include territories without indigineous populations. Secondly, they have removed many territories that would still meet the definition of dependent. That means we cannot use their list for this article. TFD (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with those differences, and as I have stated above, I don't think we can use any individual list for this article. My note on their list being a political decision was meant to convey your point that their list isn't founded on rigorous analysis. My purpose was not to dwell on their list, but to note the use of the term, and focus on the criteria as an example that matches the ones used in this article. CMD (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

TFD has noted the criteria. As for SYNTH, I have pointed out that your definition of SYNTH would lead to Western Sahara being included here. CMD (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

From my understanding, Jan Mayen is only considered a territory by many sources because of it's ISO code grouping it with Svalbard. Jan Mayen is not a dependency from the perspective of Norwegian law. Legislation is applied to Jan Mayen like anywhere else in Norway, with very few exceptions. Svalbard's governance is far more exceptional, with different immigration law being applied, as well as it's omission from the European Single Market, hence its listing here. Svalbard's local authority does not have much, if any, executive powers, however the central Norwegian government legislates in a similar fashion to say that of the UK parliament to it's smaller (non-self governing) overseas territories..

Also Jan Mayen has not always been listed on this article, and there has never been a clear consensus on it's inclusion (I can't speak for CMD's other changes).

Anyhow, I just wish to give some insight from as a former contributor.

Rob984 (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Australian external territories

I am confused as to why Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Island, and Norfolk Island are listed here. Let's forget about the latter for now. For the first two, they are administered and governed by the federal government of Australia and have their own local government (as do many Australian shires/towns). So this is no different than say, Hawaii with respect to USA. Why are they considered in the list here? The states and territories of Australia page considers them solely an integral part of Australia. For Norfolk, the article has not been updated since before 2014 for that section. Norfolk made sense here when it was self-governing, the Australian government abolished their self-governing status and its now part of Australia with the federal government controlling it basically. Any ideas? I find these Australian external territories the odd ones here. The rest of the list makes sense since each of them have a certain degree of autonomy. Svalbard is odd but involves an international treaty so I get it. Any thoughts here? Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marathonian (talk • contribs) 02:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Denmark

I don't see why Denmark (Greenland and the Faroe Islands) is listed here. Greenland and the Faroe Islands do not hold a special position recognized by international treaty or agreement like Åland. They have autonomy through devolution similar to Scotland and as such they are subnational units more than dependencies. Kisualk (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is Scotland not considered to have unique autonomy?Kisualk (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Because they are entirely self-governing, unlike Scotland. See here: [7] - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Page not found? What does "entirely self-governing" mean? They are self-governing in the same way as Scotland Kisualk (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Table of dependent territories

The table of dependent territories CLEARLY lists inhabited (i.e. permanent population) dependent territories. It does not list ANY dependent territory with zero population except for USMOI which is a late addition. USMOI which has 0 permanent population (mostly military personnel). My edit was reverted to remove this inconsistency. I am adding this to either debate this or accept my change. I believe adding USMOI only does not make sense, either add inhabited only dependent territory (as it was before) or NONE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marathonian (talk • contribs) 19:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about this, and happy to defer to the outcome of a discussion here - but I do think the discussion needs to be had before any removals/additions are made, so that we have a clear consensus on what should/should not be included. If pushed, I'd tend to favour including all, since the article is "Dependent territory", not "Dependent inhabited territory", but I don't feel particularly strongly about either choice - just that we do make a consistent, consensus choice before reverting stuff in and out. -- Begoon 06:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no issue with a table that lists all dependent territories (including ones with zero permanent population) but only adding one uninhabited territory does not make sense. Alternatively, that table lists dependent territories that have a permanent population to signify ones that are more identifiable/behave like actual countries. Either way, it should be consistent. So who favors full table with all dependencies (and would it include the "similar to dependent territories" list)? Marathonian (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

While the article is about all dependent territories (not just the populated ones), and dependent territories without permanent populations are discussed earlier in the article, there is no reason for unpopulated territories to be listed in that table. My vote is for adding the modifier "with permanent populations" to the title of the section of the article that contains the table and removing the U.S. Minor Outlying Territories from the table. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

In any case, the USMOI includes Palmyra, which is part of the U.S., so cannot be described as a dependent territory. TFD (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Alright so I guess we can remove USMOI from the list and rename the table to "Inhabited dependent territories"? Marathonian (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Fine by me. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Some notable entities are missing

I noticed that the following 46 political entities or disputed areas are missing from the list in the article:

I would like to invite everyone to discuss whether we should include these entities on the list.

I noticed that people try to distinguish whether a territory is dependent or not by determine whether it is an "integral part" of its controlling sovereign state. However, in reality, all sovereign states consider their dependent territories integral parts of their sovereign territory. For example, I see no difference between the overseas collectivities of France and the overseas regions of France. The French government treats all of them as integral parts of the French Republic and these territories have all been represented in the French National Assembly and the Senate of France. If the overseas collectivities are included in the "similar entities" section, I see no reason why the overseas regions should not. Another example is Jan Mayen, if Svalbard is included, I see no reason why Jan Mayen should not.

In my opinion, people can never reach an agreement about these entities. As a result, people will end up reverting other people's edits and engaging in heated debates among themselves in a never ending cycle. So my suggestion is to modify the title to something like "Dependent territories, special political entities and notable disputed areas" and include all of the above listed territories by dividing them into different categories: dependent territories, special political entities, autonomous regions, overseas territories, condominia, notable disputed areas, UN buffer zones and terrae nullius etc. That way, everyone will be happy and no one will complain ever again. 2001:8003:9008:1301:C107:8168:5157:596F (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the entities listed, that is a varied and inconsistent mix of a number of different places, and I can't see any criteria behind it. Regarding the aim to have multiple lists, the better solution for that would be multiple articles. A single article that is a grab-bag of everything would be very ill-defined. CMD (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

First the article defines territories as being outside the administering state. Overseas collectivities are part of France, while regions are outside. England, Wales, etc. are all part of the UK. Implicit in the definition is that a territory is an administrative district with a permanent population. That rules out the Golan Heights and Antarctica. I think though you are right about Western Sahara. TFD (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources, Sources, Sources.... We have to rely on sourced information for dependency inclusion after all. I have never seen sourced documents stating that Bir Tawil, Brussels, England, Gornja Siga, Scotland, Republika Srpska, UNDOF Zone, etc. are "dependent" territories of any particular state. Much of what you listed here (but not all) are autonomous entities, certainly, but autonomy does not simply equate to "dependent". The term "dependent" is more bespoke than that. Many areas are "autonomous" (e.g. Spain's Autonomous Communities, Sicily, Kurdistan Region, etc.) and we have an article for them here Autonomous administrative division. The only territories that you have listed here that in my opinion should be considered are 20.

Jan Mayen and 29.

Palmyra Atoll. We have previously discussed these two at length, in a talk section that was just archived (and also earlier in the archives), and I still remain unconvinced that their exclusion is justified. We have sourced information that the two territories are "dependent" here [8][9][10][11][12][13] (for the first two references open the "Government" drop down and see "Dependency Status"/"Dependent areas"). However, I have given up fighting this issue as other contributors remain unconvinced. Western Sahara and the Palestinian territories I am loathed to include, since the situation for both of these is even more complicated than dependent/autonomous/etc., and I haven't seen any recent sources proclaiming their "dependent" status. For these two it would also be debatable as to which other state they would be "dependent" on. For Western Sahara, is it Morocco? Mauretania? Algeria? or Spain? I have seen arguments made before for each one of these. In Spain's case both Spain and the UN no longer acknowledge that the Western Sahara decolonisation issue, and land dispute, is the responsibility of Spain to resolve anymore. Besides, we have an article dedicated to states with limited recognition for entities such as these two. Also, Antartica is listed, but listed seperately under each state's seperate territorial claim. In general, no-mans-lands are, by definition, not part of any state (Bir Tawil, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiz9999 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Map

I added a map, similar to the one previously used but in SVG format. I included all territories currently listed in the article, except claims listed in italics. The territories are colored by country. I also colored Antarctica in dark gray, reflecting its status as a de facto condominium administered by many countries, rather than individual claims. I labeled the territories with ISO 3166-1 codes whenever possible and custom codes otherwise, as explained in the note. I prefer using codes in the map instead of full names to allow its use with any language and allow larger letters still legible in a thumbnail image. I'm open to suggestions to improve the map. Heitordp (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your work. However, could you remove French Guiana from the map? It's not on the list of dependents territories, being fully part of France the same way Hawaii is fully part of the US.--Aréat (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I colored all parts of each country, but only labeled the territories. French Guiana is colored because it's part of France, but not labeled because it's not a territory, just like the metropolitan part. Is that confusing? If I color metropolitan France but leave French Guiana gray, it would mean that French Guiana is not part of France at all. Should I color only the territories? In that case I'll have to add a legend to show which country is represented by each color. Heitordp (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the map with a simple 1, 2, and 3 replacing the XAD, XAC, and XCS. We should avoid setting a precedent for designating these territories without ISO 3166-1 codes with these ad-hoc designations. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a good idea. But I corrected the numbers in the note. Heitordp (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of external links

The Countries of the World - Appendix: Dependencies or Not?

This web page has the most comprehensive and non-overlapping list of possible dependencies in the world I have ever seen, with every square inch of Earth's land surface investigated. Even though its inclusion criteria is rather subjective, but I still think it is worth retaining. Xindeho (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The website appears to be a membership site for a hiking app. It does not seem to be a WP:Reliable Source for this topic. CMD (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Although the website/link in question does indeed technically fall under the classification of WP:RSSELF, after searching around on the net for a while it does seem to be a widely accepted source regarding its main subject matter of hiking around the world up prominent peaks. I honestly could go either way with its inclusion/exclusion overall. I leave it up to the other editors to decide. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be way out of date, at least regarding the status of Norfolk Island, which hasn't had anything resembling home rule since 2015. ҉ Randwicked ҉ 02:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

St. Martin is part of France but listed as a dependency. Of course if you want to hike there, you are more likely to search for St. Martin than France. TFD (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Palmyra Atoll

Because Palmyra Atoll is considered an integral part of the United States, it should not be placed alongside other U.S. territories in the "List of dependent territories" section. However, since it is treated like a dependency in many ways, it belongs in the "List of similar entities" section. The "List of similar entities" section states, "The following entities are according to the law of their state, integral parts of the state, but exhibit many characteristics of dependent territories." Palmyra Atoll meets that criteria. LumaP15 (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I actually can't find any source even saying that it's an "considered an integral part" of the US. I believe other editors have overreached here in their analysis of the "incorporated territory" designation, which has a specific meaning in US law that doesn't necessarily entail consideration as "part of the United States". It's conventionally listed alongside the unincorporated territories as a US dependency. In other words, I agree it should be listed in this article - at least as a "similar entity", but maybe even as a territory proper. GeoEvan (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The source currently in the article is pretty explicit about the meaning of "incorporated territory" as it applies to Palmyra. CMD (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I 100% agree with the assessment that editors have been overreaching here. The direct association of "unincorporated territory" with "dependent territory" and "incorporated territory" with a non-"dependent" status is where the assumptions are being made. The terms are distinct from one another and have different definitions, with "dependent" having a generalised/conceptual meaning and "unincorporated"/"incorporated" having a legal meaning. I have made quite clear my view on the matter in the previous section Talk:Dependent territory/Archive 2#Jan Mayen and Palmyra Atoll, which now resides in Archive 2. In Talk:Dependent territory/Archive 2#Some notable entities are missing below the matter has again been brought up, but as I said there, I am just resigned to the notion that I am never going to convince opposing editors that a distinction exists between such terms. - Wiz9999 (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

With regard to the term "incorporated territory," the following excerpt from the Internet article Palmyra Atoll by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Insular Affairs is explanatory.

https://www.doi.gov/oia/islands/palmyraatoll

"On April 30, 1900, Hawaii (including Palmyra Atoll) became an incorporated U.S. territory. (Incorporation has been consistently interpreted as a perpetual state. Once incorporated, an area cannot be de-incorporated.) So, when Hawaii (excluding Palmyra Atoll) was admitted as one of the several States, Palmyra remained and continues to remain an incorporated U.S. territory. It is, in fact, of the fourteen U.S. insular areas, the only incorporated U.S. territory..." Atelerixia (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Several issues about this article

I would like to discuss a few issues in regard to this article:

Use of local/national flags

I think we should keep consistency with List of sovereign states, which is the most relevant article to ours (i.e. a list of dependent territories), by prioritising the use of the local flags (even though some of them are semi-official or unofficial flags used by the local governments and their people) instead of the national flags. Since these territories have already been grouped with their respective sovereign states, the use of the national flags (in some cases, a repeated use of the national flags) have served nothing but repeating nonessential information.

French Southern Territories/French Southern and Antarctic Lands

As we know, the Antarctic claims are not recognised by the international community. The United Nations formally uses the term French Southern Territories instead of French Southern and Antarctic Lands in their official documents. As a guidance, we should also avoid using the term French Southern and Antarctic Lands unless it is being used in a French article. Since dependent territory is an article concerning all possible dependencies in the world, it should be classified as an international article, not a French article, therefore we should keep WP:NPOV by adapting the term accepted by the international community.

The Crown/United Kingdom

According to the articles The Crown, Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories, all 17 British dependencies/territories (except one Antarctic claim) are self-governing political entities with a constitutional link with, but not forming a part of, the United Kingdom. They are under the sovereignty of The Crown (British Crown) instead. In other words, The Crown has a higher authority and is using the United Kingdom as a medium to exercise her sovereignty over other territories.

If we look at similar cases like the Netherlands and Denmark, they use the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Danish Realm to distinguish between mainland Netherlands, Denmark proper and their respective monarchies. In a summary table, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Danish Realm have often been abbreviated to the Netherlands and Denmark respectively.

If we use these European monarchies as the examples, the proper way to describe the sovereignty of these British dependencies/territories should be linking their sovereign entity (The Crown) to its medium (the United Kingdom).

Similarly, the same can be said for the Realm of New Zealand (including one Antarctic claim). The Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau are self-governing associated states/territory under the sovereignty of the Monarch of New Zealand (the same Monarch representing The Crown). The term Realm of New Zealand can be abbreviated to New Zealand but it is not the same as New Zealand proper. Xindeho (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

On unofficial flags, this article should not use them, and List of sovereign states does not use them either. They lack any formal status.

Well, last time when I read List of sovereign states, unofficial flags had been used in that article, but I just realised that Wiz9999 have deleted all of them yesterday. Anyway, the local flags, whether they are semi-official or unofficial, are unique to the local people and their culture. I still think using national flags all the way through is repeating nonessential information, I reckon we should at least insert an additional column to include both the national and local flags of the territories. Otherwise, we should keep consistency with List of sovereign states by omitting the national flags from those territories without official local flags (i.e. reducing nonessential information). Xindeho (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

On the Antarctic territories, NPOV is not affected by the "classification" of an article. The French territory is one entity. (Further, the UN terminology does not represent the same area, as it excludes Adélie Land.)

I don't quite understand your point. The UN and the international community in general use the term French Southern Territories because they do not recognise Adélie Land as a French territory. The French government uses the term French Southern and Antarctic Lands because, well, they absolutely consider Adélie Land as a part of their sovereign territory. If we use the French term, doesn't that mean we are on the same side as the French government? If we are, then we are certainly not keeping a NPOV here. Xindeho (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

On the BOTs, they are not all self-governing political entities. It would be useful if you could provide a source that the BOTs are under direct crown sovereignty rather than British sovereignty. The Netherlands and Denmark have completely different structures to the UK, and neither the Kingdom or Realm article are about a legally distinct "crown". CMD (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe that all inhabited British territories are self-governing political entities. I reckon this short video explains it quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10 Xindeho (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME

The distinction between an official term (e.g. "Kingdom of the Netherlands" vs. "Netherlands") is already decribed in the article, where such distinction is relevant. Also, no such rule for 'common' images/flags usage exists in English Wikipedia, so unoffical flag use should be avoided (unless there is a specific reason to not do so). See WP:SOVEREIGNFLAG for a related/similar rule encouraging the use of national flag use to ensure NPOV in light of potential sub-national seperatist sentiment. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Why should we always use and only use the official national flags? Wikipedia is not a government agency publishing official government documents. Our articles should contain high quality information from diverse sources. In this case, none of the local flags are related to potential sub-national seperatist sentiment in any way. Maybe except New Caledonia, but they have a special status within the French Republic. I think their flag is semi-official and they are kind of being given a constitutional right to secede from France (i.e. the French central government allows them to hold an independence referendum), so I don't see a problem there. As long as we use a locally accepted flag which is not banned by its central government, we should be fine with NPOV. Xindeho (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Because pushing the use of non-official variants of national symbols is laden with POV issues. That really shouldn't be complicated to understand. Nationalistic/separatist elements within any such dependent territory societies would be delighted to have their ad-hoc symbols represented alongside actual state symbols. Doing so gives such independence/separatists movements justification that their "state", "territory", "entity", etc. should be an actual independent land. Yes, such symbols are to be represented when such a independence/separatist movement itself is the subject of the discussion, but not on an every-day-use type of situation. That is why the default for the {{flag|zzzz}} template is always the official flag and not any other variant. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

An additional note on your confusion between Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories. The distinction is that the BOTs are all "constitutionally linked" to the UK. In other words, they form a 'part of the whole' of a greater "United Kingdom" (even if not considered directly a part of the actual United Kingdom). No such relationship exists between the Crown dependencies and the UK, and each one would be considered to be an independent 'country' (for the most part) were it not for the fact they are linked to the UK via The Crown itself. The distinction between The Crown and the UK is subtle, it is similar to that of the Holy See and the Vatican City. In other words, for both the Crown/UK and the Holy See/Vatican City there is not much of a distinction in practical (defacto) terms, but legally there is a massive distinction. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I still don't quite understand this greater "United Kingdom" thing. In my point of view, The Crown is similar to the Holy See, the United Kingdom is similar to the Vatican City, while the other 16 or 17 territories are like Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten etc. (constituent countries under the sovereignty of The Crown). These constituent countries are de jure equal political entities with the UK, but de facto dependent territories of the UK (too small, having very few people, no active military force, need protection from the UK etc.). Xindeho (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Please do not split up the conversation like you have, it makes it very difficult for everyone to follow.

On flags, anyone can make a flag and say it's a flag for some particular territory. That flag will probably be unique. However, that does not mean Wikipedia should show it. Official flags have status, unofficial ones do not, and that is a clear and easy distinction to follow.

Administrative divisions are, by definition, defined by the administering power. Where those divisions are more aspirational than real, or have another complication, we can note this if significant. All Antarctic claims that are considered dependent territories are included on this list.

All "inhabited" is a significant distinction. I have never seen a source claim that the BOTs, and even the Crown Dependencies, are "de jure equal" to the UK. Please provide a source for this assertion. CMD (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I know anyone can make a flag, but the local flags listed before were the ones used by their local governments and the local people, most of them have their own articles containing sources of information. Even though some of them have no official status, they are still considered culturally valuable.

As for the BOTs and Crown dependencies, maybe they are not "de jure equal" political entities, but the video source I've provided above shows they are at lease "de jure independent" political entities (i.e. they do not form part of the United Kingdom). Xindeho (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a 2005 House of Lords case that addresses this.[14] In English law the office of the Queen of the UK and the offices of the queen of the various territories are separate. When the British government exercises authority over the territories they are doing so as agents of the queen of each respective territory, not the Queen of the UK. But in practice and in interational law, they are dependent territories of the UK. Since the UK courts allowed the government to detach the British Indian Ocean Territory from Mauritius, and deport its population, it's more of a legal fiction that they are wholly self-governing. The Queen herself can only exercise her authority (with a few minor exceptions, such as awarding some honors) over the territories through the UK government acting as the government of the territories. TFD (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Xindeho Yes, yes, I too am subscribed to CGP Grey on youtube. His 2011 video on the structure of the UK/Crown is most certainly not an authoritative source on the situation, and was an attempt by this content creator to summarise this very complicated subject (distinguishing between entities with varying degrees of allegiance to the Queen). One notable error that he made in that video is in not including the BOTs as being within the UK, and directly subject to the UK (particularly at this point in the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10?t=300 where he shows a euler diagram of the whole situation with BOTs incorrectly separate from the UK). This is something that irked me back in 2011 when he first posted this video, but I simply moved on, recognising that he had made an error, and knowing that due to the direct constitutional link between the UK and the BOTs that this was not the case. The three Crown dependencies are dejure answerable directly to the Queen (to use the Holy See/Vatican City analogy, these are akin to the catholic dioceses dejure answerable directly to the Holy See), while the BOTs are dejure being answerable to the UK first and then subsequently answerable to the Queen. While in reality both Crown dependencies and BOTs are defacto answerable to the UK government. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

They are not part of the UK, otherwise they would not be dependencies, they'd be like the Isle of Wight. And de jure they do not answer to the government of the UK but to the Queen on the advice of her ministers who happen to be also her ministers for the UK. TFD (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

They have a "constitutional link" to the UK [15]. So, yes, they ARE 'part' of the UK. Even if they are not governed directly by the UK government. This is similar to the same sort of relationship that the US has with Guam, NMI, Puerto Rico, USVI, and American Samoa and similar to the relationship between France and French Polynesia, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin, Saint Martin, Wallis and Futuna, etc. In all of these cases the territories are both part of a given state, but not governed by it (i.e. "dependent" territories). - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Compare this to statements made about the Crown dependencies [16], which is clearly outlined as; "The Crown Dependencies are not part of the UK", and "The constitutional relationship of the Islands with the UK is maintained through the Crown and is not enshrined in a formal constitutional document." - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

A constitutional link doesn't make them part of the UK. France has explicitly absorbed its territories into its state, but the UK and the USA have not. TFD's source calls the BOTs "extra-territorial", with the comment on status being "They are a British overseas territory as defined in the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, but they are not part of the United Kingdom", "dependent territories outside the United Kingdom", and "South Georgia is a territory for whose international relations the United Kingdom is responsible". CMD (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It also does not mean that the British Overseas Territories are totally divorced from the UK like the crown dependencies are (only linked to it through The Crown). - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiz9999, in reply to your question at 13:36, 26 July 2020. Unlike the Netherlands, Denmark and New Zealand, the UK never created a legal unit that included the UK and its dependent territories. The main difference between the overseas territories and crown dependencies is historical. The right of the UK to administer the territories derives from English common law while the right to administer the dependencies was ceded to the UK by the king or queen in their separate roles as rulers of Man and the Channel Islands. TFD (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Table Order for The Crown/United Kingdom

Seeing as it has been discussed recently what the difference is between the crown dependencies and the BOTs, and that there has been a lot of activity recently regarding the ordering and contents of the tables throughout the article, I saw fit to re-order the UK table to be as consistent with the rest of the article as possible (granted, each state has a unique relationship to its own dependencies). Additionally, the overall order of the headings within the tables in the article now follow the pattern of; dependencies with a permanent population (inhabited), dependencies without a permanent population (uninhabited), and claimed dependencies (all happen to also be uninhabited).
The situation however is the most complex when it comes to the UK which makes ordering the table headings difficult. To start, the British Overseas Territories have a range of specific relationships to the UK that are similar to but subtly distinct from the crown dependencies. The three crown dependencies themselves are all inhabited territories with their own relationship to the UK. However, the BOTs are more divergent from one another, as they consist of both inhabited and uninhabited dependencies, claimed dependencies, and the two dependent territories the UK has set up as bases after their colonial empire receded. The British Indian Ocean Territory is reserved for military purposes only and is otherwise uninhabited, primarily through the lease to the US military of the base on Diego Garcia (meaning it mostly has US military personnel present). The Sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are even more complex since they are used as a military base by the UK government (with actual UK military this time) and they have a permanent population of local cypriots (normally associated with the population of the rest of the Republic of Cyprus), but there is not a permanent "British" (i.e. UK Citizen) population with full rights to reside within the territory (Note: the UK has structured its management and relationship of this zone to the republic of cyprus with the implication that were the UK to ever give up the base areas for one reason or another they would be absorbed more naturally into the rest of the republic, e.g the Euro is the currency used among other factors).
These factors, relating to crown dependencies and to the bases, make the issue of sorting the table headings into the three categories described even more complicated. For much of the article's history the UK table has listed the BOTs first and then the crown dependencies afterwards. The reasons for doing so seem to me to be largely arbitrary, and without a reason relating to the relationship of these territories to the UK and the nature of their constituting population. As was mentioned in the above BOT/crown dependencies discussion, whether a dependency is inhabited or not "is a significant distinction". Now as a compromise toward this, and after the emergent separation of tables into the heading categories of 'inhabited', 'uninhabited', and 'claimed', I had restructured the UK table as follows:

-Crown Dependencies (inhabited) -[but as with the rest of the article without the "(inhabited)" label, as this would otherwise be assumed]
-Overseas Territories (inhabited)
-Overseas Territories - Sovereign base areas -[the situation is so unique here it needs its own category (no permanent UK citizens but a distinct permanent population)]
-Overseas Territories (uninhabited) -[inclusive of the BIOT as this military relationship situation is akin to the US's Midway, Wake, etc.]
-Overseas Territories (claimed, uninhabited)

In this table's ordering the rest of the article's table order of 'inhabited', 'uninhabited', and 'claimed' is consistent and maintained no matter how the SBAs is assigned. It also keeps the military bases of SBAs and BIOT adjacent to one another to avoid future arguments over this. However, this restructuring was recently reverted to the (mostly) former order of the following:

-Overseas Territories (inhabited)
-Overseas Territories - Sovereign base areas
-Overseas Territories (uninhabited)
-Crown Dependencies (inhabited)
-Overseas Territories (claimed, uninhabited)

Which, as far as I can tell, is fairly arbitrary and is based mainly on the idea of putting the crown dependencies after the BOTs (as before), but it fails to do so, as the heading of 'claimed' BOT territories comes immediately afterwards. Now I see two ways forward here, either we can restore the compromise order that I made in my earlier edits, or we can put the crown dependencies after the BOT claimed territory heading and forget the idea of structuring the remaining tables in the rest of the article based on the presence of a permanent population and claimed/actual dependent territory. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

We should be careful not to draw strong distinctions between BOTs and Crown Dependencies, and between various BOTs, that are not reflected in other sources. The description should not for example state the Crown Dependencies are autonomous as it implies the BOTs are not, when many are. (The sectioning also appears to be OR in parts. The term "Overseas special territory" currently used for Clipperton Island gives me precisely two google hits, this article and an airline forum.) The subsectioning also mixes descriptive terms with official terms, without much clarity. On the specific table ordering I don't have a detailed view, but in the brief descriptions at the beginning the jump from 3->13->1 which deviates from both numerical and alphabetical order implies a prominence I don't believe is reflected in sources. CMD (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The description should not for example state the Crown Dependencies are autonomous ... - Agreed, I will strike out the word "autonomous" from the summary in the UK section now.
The sectioning also appears to be OR in parts. - Near as I can tell, the French section is the biggest troublemaker here and pretty much always has been. "Overseas Collectivity" and "Overseas Territory" are pretty well established, but New Caledonia is the complicated entry. The French government itself has been sourced as referring to it as a 'sui generis' collectively on occasion (see this source [17]) and it is probably safest if I just restore this as the header for its category. Clipperton on the other hand has never been officially referred to as any of the headings used to describe it on this article previously, nor is it officially known as a "Special status" area, as is used in the Overseas France article (which also appears to be a bit of OR). It is known to simply be a private property of the French state, so I will change the heading to "State's private property" to reflect this.
3->13->1 which deviates from both numerical and alphabetical order implies a prominence - The order of the table that the UK table headings were restructured to is hardly alphabetic [Overseas territories, Overseas territory – Sovereign base areas, Overseas territory (uninhabited), Crown dependencies, Overseas territory (uninhabited, claimed)]. It may deviate from numerical and alphabetical order, but not from the order of inhabited vs. uninhabited, as no crown dependency is uninhabited whereas at least one of the BOTs are (possibly two or three depending on the interpretation of "uninhabited"). Besides the rest of the tables in the article hardly conform to having headings in numerical order (or in alphabetical order as you claim). Just look at the US with regard to numerical order (and New Zealand with regard to alphabetical order). What makes the UK so special that it must comply with such requirements when the other sections do not? - Wiz9999 (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The correct term for the UK territories is "British Overseas Territories", which starts with a B not an O. This is one issue that arises with the use of modified terms on this page. "State's private property" isn't giving me any google hits either. Regarding ordering, the text I referenced was not that of the tables, but that of the "descriptions at the beginning". Aside from Norway's Antarctic claims (and Antarctic claims is a separation that is not uncommon in reliable sources), all of the other bullets go from largest to smallest numerically (2-1-1, 13-2, 6-2). CMD (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there any difference in law between the different types of BOTs? After all, one needs the permission of the British government to enter any of them, whether or not they are inhabited or military bases. TFD (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis "State's private property" is one hell of a lot better than what was on here previously (Overseas minor territory) which was a term totally unrepresented anywhere else. At least "State's private property" is consistent with the description of the relationship with regards to the Clipperton main article. However, if you have a better term to use then please offer a suggestion, I am very open to another term for this.
Regardless of whether it is "British Overseas Territories" or "Overseas Territories" it is not alphabetical (as you say is desirable) due to the BOT Antarctic claim section still tacked on at the end.
Furthermore regarding the ordering, the order of the tables in my opinion is what really needs consistency here. The ordering of the text in the summary section at the top should ideally be subservient to the table's order. However, the tables are not consistent numerically. Norway, as you say, has the two Dependent territory claims after the dependent territory itself but, also as you say, this is less of an issue as it seems that all editors here are content with the claims being sorted at the end of each table/summary. However, the most egregious violation of numerical order is the US table. I know in the summary there is no issue, as it simply states "13 unincorporated territories" without regard to the "organised"/"unorganised" nature of those 13 territories, but in the table we have four unincorporated organised territories, one inhabited unincorporated unorganised territory, and eight unincorporated unorganised territories that are uninhabited, followed by the two US claims. Does that break down into any kind of sensible largest to smallest numerical order to you? To me it does not, no matter how I look at the categorisation of the headings, e.g. inhabited vs. uninhabited or organised vs. unorganised. Why should the UK table fit to this 'largest to smallest numerical order' when the US table so clearly violates it (by the way the UK table still does not exactly follow numerical order due to the handful of individual BOT headings)?
As I stated in my previous comments above there are two solutions to the current order put the crown dependencies in the UK section at the beginning of the table headings (and accept the violation of the numerical/alphabetical order in the table headings, which is being violated by the US section anyway in the numerical sense), or put them after the BOT Antarctic claims heading (which would mean ending the accepted table heading ordering of having claimed territory on the end). In either case I would hope that the summary section at the top would follow on from the order of the tables, but this does not necessarily need to be the case. Right now the big issue that I see is that the current position of the crown dependencies in the UK table is completely senseless, it comes after the BOTs (fair enough, were those headings to start with a "B") but then not all of the entries for the BOTs. It still comes before those BOTs that are claims, in violation of some supposed 'alphabetical order'. However, most egregiously is that the uninhabited BOTs still remain above the crown dependencies, when in no other table is this the case. Violating the order of inhabited territories first, uninhabited territories, then claims at the end, that all other tables remain consistent with, except the UK. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces Not 100% sure about the others but at least Akrotiri and Dhekelia have a bespoke set of laws unique from the rest of the BOTs. It's all tied up in the complexities of the situation in Cyprus and how it gained independence from the UK. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have never stated alphabetical order is desirable, I noted it as an example of a instinctive and natural order alongside numerical where deviations would be noticed. The difference between the tables and the "Summary" is the table has room to contextualise its ordering choices. The US table seems to do this, and its deviations are clearly explained by the headers. There is no reason why a Summary should go into these details and replicate the tables, and as you note it does not currently. That means its information presentation should be considered on its own. (If the summary is just meant to replicate the tables, a bolder action might be to simply remove it as redundant. Same with the Overview table.) CMD (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Then we are agreed that at least the position of the crown dependency heading in the UK table can be moved? - Wiz9999 (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no strong view as to where they should go on that table, if they are going to be separated from the other inhabited territories. CMD (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Why are the Australian external territories here

They don't even meet the inclusion criteria of the section they're shoehorned into. They're entities with no unique autonomy (despite the intro saying "it does not include entities with no unique autonomy"), and they're not self-governing, nor are they subject to any international treaties. It's been asked in this talk section before, regrettably in the archives now, but it was never answered adequately. Interested to hear opinions.

I also kinda wonder if 'dependent territories', as a distinct category of thing, actually even exist, given the general paucity of sourcing in this page and the motley collection of different types of entities being lumped together here, or if we're just taking an atlas-maker's indexing convention and trying to frankenstein a definition for it, but that's a separate matter.

- ҉ Randwicked ҉ 23:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

One problem is that under international law, no distinction was made between a nation state and its dependencies. It was a matter of domestic law whether a territory was part of or outside the country. And since different countries differ in their domestic law, there was no consistency. In some cases the status was not always clear in domestic law. For example, it took the U.S. decades to determine that Alaska was part of the U.S. This is just an exercise of original research. TFD (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Granted, the "similar entities" section is liable to having OR additions made to it to satisfy the whims and POV of any editors that come to contribute here, but the article as a whole I would not go so far as to call an "exercise of original research". We have multiple sources within the article that outline what is to be considered a dependent territory or not ([18][19][20][21]). Agreed, the references to these lists could be more directly linked to throughout the article, since having so many entries without references just calls their inclusion into question, but nevertheless the list content overall is sourced. Yes, these sources do include the Australian External Territories as being included as 'dependencies', however, as stated above, it should be noted that a few of them do not govern themselves directly, and the "similar entities" section has appropriately been assigned to Australia in my opinion. The biggest conflict points that I can see coming to this article will be from entries for dependencies that the sources disagree on. - Wiz9999 (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I had a glance at those references. Both the CIA and EU ones are inaccurate/plain wrong, when it comes to the status of Norfolk Island at least, calling it 'self-governing' despite it being no such thing. Also, the EU list contains a lot of entities that aren't included in this list. Why? Wikipedia making a choice to include or exclude certain entities from the category of 'dependent territory' is veering pretty close to original research, IMO. But the real issue is that 'dependent territory' in this article is poorly defined, and is uncited when doing so (the given reference, A UN resolution, does not define 'dependent territory' AT ALL). Where does this categorisation actually come from? why are French overseas departments and Netherlands overseas municipalities not dependencies, when things like the Australian external territories are? Where's Jan Mayen? Who says these things are categorically different? I think we're missing the wood for the trees trying to cite this or that entity as being dependent or not, when we can't even define dependency properly.

Reference 7 calls them 'dependent areas', and misses a lot of entities from this list, for instance the Danish ones. It does not define its terms.

Reference 8, a list of dependencies and their statuses, gets the status of Norfolk Island wrong, IMO making it not reliable for this article. It also contains a lot of entities missing from this list.

Reference 9 is a list of areas of special sovereignty and dependencies, but does not define these terms or say which is which.

Reference 10 does not mention nor define dependencies, except to call certain British territories by that name. It also incorrectly calls Norfolk Island self-governing.

Given all this, I think this article needs major work. ҉ Randwicked ҉ 10:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Certainly we have multiple lists of dependent territories in reliable sources, the trouble is that they do not agree. The only way to resolve that problem is through original research. We take a definition from one source and descriptions of the territories from multiple sources and determine which of them fit our definition which is synthesis. The Cook Islands and Niue for example are considered to be independent states according to the UN but dependent territories according to the NZ government. And why are Hong Kong and Macau listed when they are part of China? Why is Puerto Rico listed, when the U.S. says they are in free association? TFD (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Much of the contents of this article have been thoroughly discussed here on this talk page previously and the general consensus has been to include the current entries on the article/list. These are largely reflected in the four sources that I had listed. However, I understand the problematic nature of selectively including and excluding entries from any of these lists, nevertheless it must be done for us to have an accurate NPOV article. So, to get a better idea of the scale of the issue (with which entries being absent from/included in the tables) the lists from the RS's and how all the entries can be compared and summarised are as follows:

	[22]	[23]	[24]	[25]	Present in all four:
1		Akrotiri & Dhekelia	Akrotiri & Dhekelia
2	American Samoa	American Samoa	American Samoa	American Samoa	American Samoa
3	Anguilla	Anguilla	Anguilla	Anguilla	Anguilla
4			"Antarctica"	"Antarctica"
5	Aruba	Aruba	Aruba	Aruba	Aruba
6	Ashmore and Cartier Islands	Ashmore and Cartier Islands	Ashmore and Cartier Islands
7	Baker Island		Baker Island
8	Bermuda	Bermuda	Bermuda	Bermuda	Bermuda
9	Bouvet Island	Bouvet Island	Bouvet Island	Bouvet Island	Bouvet Island
10	British Indian Ocean Territory	British Indian Ocean Territory	British Indian Ocean Territory	British Indian Ocean Territory	British Indian Ocean Territory
11	British Virgin Islands	British Virgin Islands	British Virgin Islands	British Virgin Islands	British Virgin Islands
12	Cayman Islands	Cayman Islands	Cayman Islands	Cayman Islands	Cayman Islands
13	Christmas Island	Christmas Island	Christmas Island	Christmas Island	Christmas Island
14	Clipperton	Clipperton	Clipperton	Clipperton	Clipperton
15	Cocos (Keeling) Islands	Cocos (Keeling) Islands	Cocos (Keeling) Islands	Cocos (Keeling) Islands	Cocos (Keeling) Islands
16	Cook Islands	Cook Islands	Cook Islands	Cook Islands	Cook Islands
17	Coral Sea Islands	Coral Sea Islands	Coral Sea Islands
18	Curaçao	Curaçao	Curaçao	Curaçao	Curaçao
19	Falkland Islands	Falkland Islands	Falkland Islands	Falkland Islands	Falkland Islands
20			Faroe Islands	Faroe Islands
21			French Guiana	French Guiana
22	French Polynesia	French Polynesia	French Polynesia	French Polynesia	French Polynesia
23	French Southern and Antarctic Lands	French Southern and Antarctic Lands	French Southern and Antarctic Lands	French Southern and Antarctic Lands	French Southern and Antarctic Lands
24	Gibraltar	Gibraltar	Gibraltar	Gibraltar	Gibraltar
25		Greenland	Greenland	Greenland
26			Guadeloupe	Guadeloupe
27	Guam	Guam	Guam	Guam	Guam
28			Guernsey	Guernsey
29	Heard Island and McDonald Islands	Heard Island and McDonald Islands	Heard Island and McDonald Islands	Heard Island and McDonald Islands	Heard Island and McDonald Islands
30		Hong Kong	Hong Kong	Hong Kong
31	Howland Island	Howland Island	Howland Island
32		Isle of Man	Isle of Man	Isle of Man
33	Jan Mayen	Jan Mayen	Jan Mayen	Jan Mayen	Jan Mayen
34	Jarvis Island	Jarvis Island	Jarvis Island
35		Jersey	Jersey	Jersey
36	Johnston Atoll	Johnston Atoll	Johnston Atoll
37	Kingman Reef	Kingman Reef	Kingman Reef
38		Macau	Macau	Macau
39			Martinique	Martinique
40			Mayotte	Mayotte
41	Midway Islands	Midway Islands	Midway Islands
42	Montserrat	Montserrat	Montserrat	Montserrat	Montserrat
43	Navassa Island	Navassa Island	Navassa Island
44	New Caledonia	New Caledonia	New Caledonia	New Caledonia	New Caledonia
45	Niue	Niue	Niue	Niue	Niue
46	Norfolk Island	Norfolk Island	Norfolk Island	Norfolk Island	Norfolk Island
47	Northern Mariana Islands	Northern Mariana Islands	Northern Mariana Islands	Northern Mariana Islands	Northern Mariana Islands
48	Palmyra Atoll	Palmyra Atoll	Palmyra Atoll
49			Paracel Islands
50	Pitcairn Islands	Pitcairn Islands	Pitcairn Islands	Pitcairn Islands	Pitcairn Islands
51	Puerto Rico	Puerto Rico	Puerto Rico	Puerto Rico	Puerto Rico
52			Réunion	Réunion
53	Saint Barthélemy	Saint Barthélemy	Saint Barthélemy	Saint Barthélemy	Saint Barthélemy
54	Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha	Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha	Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha	Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha	Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
55	Saint Martin	Saint Martin	Saint Martin	Saint Martin	Saint Martin
56	Saint Pierre and Miquelon	Saint Pierre and Miquelon	Saint Pierre and Miquelon	Saint Pierre and Miquelon	Saint Pierre and Miquelon
57	Sint Maarten	Sint Maarten	Sint Maarten	Sint Maarten	Sint Maarten
58	South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands	South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands	South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands	South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands	South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
59			Spratly Islands
60	Svalbard	Svalbard	Svalbard	Svalbard	Svalbard
61	Tokelau	Tokelau	Tokelau	Tokelau	Tokelau
62	Turks and Caicos Islands	Turks and Caicos Islands	Turks and Caicos Islands	Turks and Caicos Islands	Turks and Caicos Islands
63				"US Minor Outlying Islands"
64		"US Pacific Island Wildlife Refuges"
65	US Virgin Islands	US Virgin Islands	US Virgin Islands	US Virgin Islands	US Virgin Islands
66	Wake Island	Wake Island	Wake Island
67	Wallis and Futuna	Wallis and Futuna	Wallis and Futuna	Wallis and Futuna	Wallis and Futuna
68			Western Sahara	Western Sahara

None of the Antarctic claims individually are included on any of these four sources, however the last two do list "Antarctica" as one dependency.

The French overseas departments and regions (French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, and Réunion) are included in the list in the latter two sources, but are noted as being "not dependencies or areas of special sovereignty" in the third source (despite their inclusion within that list) and are described as only being included for convenience.

Niue and the Cook Islands are indicated in the fourth source as fully sovereign states, but are noted as being in "free-association with New Zealand".

Both the entries for "US Pacific Island Wildlife Refuges" and "US Minor Outlying Islands" would include Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, and Wake Island. "US Minor Outlying Islands" also would include Midway Atoll and Navassa Island as well. The second source oddly choses to exclude Baker Island from its entries, but lists all the remainder as entries. It could be considered to still include Baker Island however as it does include the "US Pacific Island Wildlife Refuges". The fourth source does not list any of the US MOI individually, but they could all still be considered to be included individually since it does have the single entry for "US Minor Outlying Islands".

From the four sources used above the following entries appear in one form or another on all of them:

	Present in all four:
2	American Samoa
3	Anguilla
5	Aruba
8	Bermuda
9	Bouvet Island
10	British Indian Ocean Territory
11	British Virgin Islands
12	Cayman Islands
13	Christmas Island
14	Clipperton
15	Cocos (Keeling) Islands
16	Cook Islands
18	Curaçao
19	Falkland Islands
22	French Polynesia
23	French Southern and Antarctic Lands
24	Gibraltar
27	Guam
29	Heard Island and McDonald Islands
33	Jan Mayen
42	Montserrat
44	New Caledonia
45	Niue
46	Norfolk Island
47	Northern Mariana Islands
50	Pitcairn Islands
51	Puerto Rico
53	Saint Barthélemy
54	Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
55	Saint Martin
56	Saint Pierre and Miquelon
57	Sint Maarten
58	South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
60	Svalbard
61	Tokelau
62	Turks and Caicos Islands
65	US Virgin Islands
67	Wallis and Futuna

	Present in all four + all US MOI:
2	American Samoa
3	Anguilla
5	Aruba
7	Baker Island
8	Bermuda
9	Bouvet Island
10	British Indian Ocean Territory
11	British Virgin Islands
12	Cayman Islands
13	Christmas Island
14	Clipperton
15	Cocos (Keeling) Islands
16	Cook Islands
18	Curaçao
19	Falkland Islands
22	French Polynesia
23	French Southern and Antarctic Lands
24	Gibraltar
27	Guam
29	Heard Island and McDonald Islands
31	Howland Island
33	Jan Mayen
34	Jarvis Island
36	Johnston Atoll
37	Kingman Reef
41	Midway Islands
42	Montserrat
43	Navassa Island
44	New Caledonia
45	Niue
46	Norfolk Island
47	Northern Mariana Islands
48	Palmyra Atoll
50	Pitcairn Islands
51	Puerto Rico
53	Saint Barthélemy
54	Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
55	Saint Martin
56	Saint Pierre and Miquelon
57	Sint Maarten
58	South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
60	Svalbard
61	Tokelau
62	Turks and Caicos Islands
65	US Virgin Islands
66	Wake Island
67	Wallis and Futuna

The only territories that are in the above aggregate list of entries present in all four RS's that are still not included in the current form of the article are Jan Mayen and Palmyra Atoll. I had noticed this prior and have since been strongly advocating for their inclusion as a result but have met resistance from other editors here despite the sourced reference for them. Conversely, the following 18 territories are currently included in this article but are not part of the 46 entries from the final table above that are arguably all within the four sourced references:

	Not present in all four, but are still within this article:
1	Akrotiri & Dhekelia
	Åland
6	Ashmore and Cartier Islands
	Australian Antartic Territory
	Bajo Nuevo Bank
	British Antartic Territory
17	Coral Sea Islands
20	Faroe Islands
25	Greenland
28	Guernsey
30	Hong Kong
32	Isle of Man
35	Jersey
38	Macau
	Peter I Island
	Queen Maud Land
	Ross Dependency
	Serranilla Bank

It is these 18 territories that are the only entries we should realistically be questioning at all, but most notably Akrotiri & Dhekelia and British Antarctic Territory are both British Overseas Territories. Any exclusion of Akrotiri & Dhekelia from this article would leave the BOTs as a partial category in the UK table, since it will not have all 12 (13 with the Antarctic claim) of the sourced UK BOT-type of dependencies. The same applies to the Australian External Territories, in which all entries are within all four sources with the exception of Ashmore and Cartier Islands and Coral Sea Islands (yes even the uninhabited Heard Island and McDonald Islands are in all four sources). Leaving these two out of the article would leave the Australian External Territories heading with two entries missing.

All other entries that are present in at least one of the RS's, but are not here in the article are as follows:

	Not Directly Present in Article:
4	"Antarctica"
21	French Guiana
26	Guadeloupe
33	Jan Mayen
39	Martinique
48	Palmyra Atoll
49	Paracel Islands
52	Réunion
59	Spratly Islands
63	"US Minor Outlying Islands"
64	"US Pacific Island Wildlife Refuges"
68	Western Sahara

Excluding most of these make sense, e.g. Antarctica as a whole, the "US Pacific Island Wildlife Refuges" and "US Minor Outlying Islands" as broad ranging categories, Western Sahara's complicated & unique situation, etc. However, as I stated previously, only Jan Mayen and Palmyra Atoll are entries without some kind of caveat associated with them within the source they are included within. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

My recent edit of the article "Dependent territory"

My recent edit of this article contained numerous valid and necessary changes and should not be reverted. The section title "Dependent territories," for example, needed to be expanded because many of the entities listed in that section are actually external constituent parts of independent nations rather than dependent territories. Atelerixia (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

external constituent parts of independent nations rather than dependent territories The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some dependent territories may be external constituent parts of the state. Just look at how French Polynesia, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and Wallis and Futuna are constituent parts of the French state. I highly disagree with your assertion that the edits you are making are valid or necessary. To me they seem disruptive and totally against the consensus reached here in the talk page through years of discussions, as detailed in the archives. - Wiz9999 (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The section title that needed to be expanded was "Overview of Inhabited dependent territories," not the section title "Dependent territories" that I cited above. External constituent parts of independent states and Dependent territories should be considered as two mutually exclusive categories because they differentiate integral parts of states from non-integral parts, respectively. The French overseas entities, for example, are integral parts of the French Republic, whereas the British overseas territories are under British sovereignty but are not constituent or integral parts of the United Kingdom. The French and the British just prefer to treat their overseas areas differently. The last section of the "Dependent territory" article combines the inhabited entities from both of those two categories, and that is fine, but the title of that section should make that combination clear. Atelerixia (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

External constituent parts of independent states and Dependent territories should be considered as two mutually exclusive categories
Why? Do you have some sort of reasoning backed up by sources? The fact that some of these are "integral" parts of their parent states and some are not does not have any bearing on whether they are dependent territories or not. The two terms are not the same. The heading you have selected for the table at the bottom of the article "Overview of inhabited dependent territories and external constituent parts of independent states" is not workable. It is just too long, for the sake of brevity this should be shortened somehow (I assume this is what you are talking about, it is hard to follow what you are saying when you don't even seem to be consistent about what section you are talking about). I am not opposed to it being changed to a more clear heading. I'm not saying the heading before was ideal, but at least it was brief before. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, I see you have reverted the reversion of your edits again. Please refrain from doing so, as this is totally disruptive to the discussion ongoing here. I remind you that en.wikipedia has rules against edit warring (WP:ew) - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This article already tries to deal with the different categories of entities that often get lumped seemingly arbitrarily under this label. The particular potential distinction in question should already be quite clear well before the final section of the article. CMD (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

A territory that is an integral part of a state cannot by definition be a dependent territory. That's why the Isle of Man is listed, but the Shetlands aren't. Or why Ameircan Samoa is listed, but not Hawaii. TFD (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

A territory that is an integral part of a state cannot by definition be a dependent territory. It is clearly not that black and white. If so then why are Ross Dependency, Hong Kong, Macau, Åland, French Polynesia, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Wallis and Futuna, Clipperton Island, French Southern and Antarctic Lands, and Svalbard all on this list? As far as I can tell these territories are all clearly defined as being "an integral part" of their state. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

None of these territories should be on the list because no legal textbook would describe them that way. I will however modify my position. A territory that is part of one country but occupied by a second country can be a dependent territory of the occupying country. So Hong Kong and Macau were British dependencies until they were returned to China. TFD (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Then I STRONGLY suggest that you be WP:BOLD and remove all of the territories I listed from this article (and any others you consider to be integral to their parent state) and see how well that goes with the rest of en.wikipedia. However, I will note that at least these four sources [26] [27] [28] [29] do include those territories (except the Ross Dependency, Hong Kong, Macau, and Åland). If you do not do this please do not claim to me again about how "integral" is identical to "dependent territory". - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Written constitutions can be a pain and IMO are used too often in WP as the 'correct' way to go. A constitution does not stop a place being a dependent territory, in the common usage of that term. Tahiti might be 'part of France' in a legal sense but it is a dependent territory in most other senses. The French constitution might be changed next week to remove FP et al from being 'in France', but there would be very little practical difference. However, I can see how in some cases the distinction is less clear than France and its overseas possessions, eg Spain-Ceuta. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

If the law does not determine whether a territory is a dependent territory, what does? TFD (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

People's perception, as reflected in reliable secondary sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! Finally, someone that agrees that sources predominate when it comes to the "dependent" nature of territories. I know whether a territory is integral or not is also important in its own right, but the simple fact is that "integrated"/"integral" does not exclude something from being "dependent" as the two concepts are (although similar) distinguishable from one another. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the following statement that was made above by TFD: "A territory that is an integral part of a state cannot by definition be a dependent territory." The distinction between a "dependent territory" and "an outlying or special integral part of an independent state" would seem to be an important one to maintain. That's why the section "Lists of similar entities" is included in this article. The suggested title for the overview section "Overview of inhabited dependent territories and external constituent parts of independent states" IS a long one, but whatever title that section has should indicate that it includes the two types of inhabited entities. What about "Overview of inhabited dependent territories and outlying parts of independent states" as a title? Another possibility would be to divide the single overview section unto two sections--one for inhabited dependent territories and a separate one for the outlying parts of independent (or sovereign) states. Also, is it really important that the overview section (or sections) continue to be limited to inhabited territories, rather than including all territories whether they're inhabited or not? I also agree with the following statement that was made above by TFD: "A territory that is part of one country but occupied by a second country can be a dependent territory of the occupying country." That's why it would be appropriate to include Gilgit-Baltistan in the list of dependent territories. Gilgit-Baltistan forms part of India's recently-created Union Territory of Ladakh but has been occupied by Pakistan for over 70 years already. Atelerixia (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

British Indian Ocean Territory and Wake Atoll

The British Indian Ocean Territory and Wake Atoll were previously listed incorrectly as uninhabited territories. As each of those territories is presently host to an active military base, they are very much inhabited. At the present time, the British Indian Ocean Territory has a population of around 3,000, and Wake Atoll has about 150 inhabitants. Atelerixia (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

That sort of justification has been used on this talk page before, and rejected (See Talk:Dependent territory/Archive 1#What counts as inhabited and Talk:Dependent territory/Archive 1#Australian Coral Sea Islands). Mainly due to the fact that these places are officially considered to have no permanent population, ie. no civilians or other 'settled' peoples, see [30] and [31].
I also see that you have reverted to your edited version of the article. Do not make edits to divisive contents while discussions are going on. I will revert your edits now, please refrain from this disruptive behaviour. - Wiz9999 (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

"Uninhabited" and "having no permanent population" are two different things, and it would be useful to know which territories have people on them on a regular basis and which territories don't. Atelerixia (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Then why are you selectively discriminating against the other territories with people on them? Why are you including Wake and BIOT, but not Coral Sea Islands (Willis Island), Midway Atoll, and all the Antarctic claims, etc.? All of which have some sort of military persons stationed on them or other people living there on a temporary basis. I am sorry, but your justification does not hold much weight if you apply it selectively. The two territories that you are attributing a degree of inhabited-ness are totally arbitrary and not backed by any source that I can discern. I request that you produce some sources to back up your claim of these two territories being inhabited at the exclusion of any others. Otherwise this claim is just WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Since Willis Island in the Coral Sea Islands, Midway Atoll, and Palmyra Atoll do have people on them on a regular basis, the Coral Sea Islands, Midway Atoll, and Palmyra Atoll should also be added to the overview list as it presently stands. They weren't meant to be excluded. Atelerixia (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Lists of similar entities section

Jan Mayen and Palmyra Atoll are presently missing from the Lists of similar entities section and should be added there. The two territories have a few things in common: They both have just a small number of non-indigenous inhabitants, and they are both considered to be integral parts of their respective parent nations (Norway and the United States) rather than dependent territories. In the Wikipedia article "Norway," Jan Mayen is described as an integral overseas territory, and in the Wikipedia article "List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent," the United States is described as a federation consisting of 50 states, one federal district, and one incorporated territory (which would be Palmyra Atoll). To make the Lists of similar entities section complete, can Jan Mayen and Palmyra Atoll now be added to that section without being reverted? Atelerixia (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

There are a lot of territories that have those attributes. What is the reasoning for singling out those two, and how does that make the section complete? CMD (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Better wording would have been "To make the Lists of similar entities section more complete..." Since that section omits entities with no unique autonomy, what other territories would there be that are integral parts of their respective parent nations and have unique autonmy as well? Atelerixia (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Neither Jan Mayen nor Palmyra Atoll are autonomous. There are a few unique cases found at List of autonomous areas by country though. CMD (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Granted, but they are still outlying integral parts of their respective parent nations and might mistakenly be thought to be dependent territories by people who didn't know better. Hence the reason for including them in the Lists of similar entities section. Why not?

Another issue is the listing of certain territories as uninhabited when they actually aren't. The Coral Sea Islands and French Southern and Antarctic Lands both have small populations that man meteorological stations on the islands in those territories. The Coral Sea Islands supposedly have four such individuals on Willis Island, and French Southern and Antarctic Lands has a population that varies between 150 and 310, depending on the season. Wouldn't that be reason enough to not list them as uninhabited in the Lists of similar entities section? Atelerixia (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

One reason why not is that "outlying integral parts of their respective parent nations" is a very broad and ill-defined category. There's a lot of places that might fall into such a definition, and adding them would push these lists quite a long way off topic. CMD (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better then to repace the term "uninhabited" with "no indigenous inhabitants"? Atelerixia (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan

Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan should be added to this list as dependent territories. The Pakistani government has controlled those two areas since 1947 but has refused to make them part of Pakistan, thinking that if it did so, it would thereby lose its chance of getting all of Kashmir some day, by way of a UN-held plebiscite there, which is never going to happen anyway, for sure. The people in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan have never had any representation in Pakistan's parliament and have very little to say about what goes on in their homelands, which are treated more like colonies than anything else. It's time that Pakistan is recognized as a colonial power with two dependent territories under its constant control. Atelerixia (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are not regarded as being a part of the Pakistani state, and are considered "independent" states by the Pakistani government, even though in defacto functionality they act as autonomous regions inside Pakistan (see: [32]). Note that it is possible to be an autonomous region and not be a dependent territory (see: Autonomous administrative division). Their inclusion in this list is not appropriate under either of these circumstances (autonomous region or independent country) and they should most definitely not be included in the article's section of undisputed formal dependent territories (Dependent territory#Lists of dependent territories) which you have added them to. Also, here on en.wikipedia we have a WP:NPOV, regardless of how severe Pakistan's apparent 'colonialism' may appear to yourself we must remain neutral in such disputed issues. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The government of Pakistan does NOT consider Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan to be independent states, and because they have not been annexed to form part of Pakistan, it is entirely appropriate to treat them as dependent territories and add them to this list. Atelerixia (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This example shows the impossibility of this article. Pakistan is seen as formally administering but not controlling these states, but informally controlling them. Other dependencies were formerly controlled but now are said to be administered while informally controlled. I don't see any substantial or legal difference, just an historical one. TFD (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The government of Pakistan does NOT consider Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan to be independent states Yes they do: [33] - Wiz9999 (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The government of Pakistan just annexed Gilgit-Baltistan to become Pakistan's fifth province on 1 November 2020, but Azad Kashmir remains a dependent territory under Pakistani control without any representation in Pakistan's governing bodies (parliament and senate).Atelerixia (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to add Gilgit-Baltistan to this article as a dependent territory. As TFD says in the section "My recent edit of the article 'Dependent territory'" below: "A territory that is part of one country but occupied by a second country can be a dependent territory of the occupying country." Gilgit-Baltistan is part of India's recently-created Union Territory of Ladakh but has been occupied by Pakistan for over 70 years already. Atelerixia (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stay politically neutral in the discussion. I reckon the whole region of Kashmir should be treated as a disputed territory under the list of similar entities. 120.16.204.99 (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Norfork Island is a part of NSW?

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jan/27/queensland-government-in-talks-to-take-over-norfolk-island-from-nsw

According to this article published by The Guardian, Norfolk Island is now a part of New South Wales. Should we remove the island off the list? 120.16.204.99 (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Norfolk Island is not part of NSW, although it is under NSW administration. It is very difficult to change the borders of Australian states. CMD (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Just saw this article here as well. Yeah, it's completely inaccurate. It wasn't made part of NSW in 2015, it just lost its self-governance and hence became more equivalent to Christmas Is. and Cocos in status than to the ACT and NT. ҉ Randwicked ҉ 12:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

None of these offshore islands should be listed as dependencies. Maybe Norfolk Island before 2015 could be considered a dependent territory of Australia. 120.16.24.243 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The correct English names of two French overseas areas

"Saint Barthelemy" is the correct English name of that French overseas collectivity. Its French name is "Saint-Barthélemy" with a hyphen and an accent mark on the first "e". The spelling "Saint Barthélemy" is not correct, as it is simply a mix of the English and French forms.

"Reunion" is the correct English name of that French overseas region, whereas "Réunion" is the French name, with an accent mark on the "e". Atelerixia (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Please provide sources that state that this is the case. - Wiz9999 (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Reunion, what if someone writing in English uses Réunion as a foreign loan word (ie correctly used in English and correctly written in French)? and what if someone else uses Reunion as an English word of French origin that has been assimilated and anglised? (ie correctly used in English) I sympathise with your point but this is a minefield, not handled well by many wiki articles, based heavily on personal opinion. Sources will vary considerably. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

All else being equal for common names this article should probably use the article title of the polity in question, which would theoretically be using the common and recognisable English name. If they are not, this is not a useful venue to change that. CMD (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:COMMONNAME will be decided at the respective article's talk page and be reflected in its title. This is not the right place to be arguing against common-name practice for these territories. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

English language can tolerate the accent mark on the "e" but not the strange hyphen, so the correct English names for these two French overseas territories are Saint Barthélemy and Réunion.

Both territories shouldn't be included in the list though, they are intergal parts of the French Republic. 120.16.24.243 (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Overview section

The very first sentence of this article explains the difference between a dependent territory and an integral part of a sovereign state. Since the Overview section of this article presently lists entities that fall into either one or the other of those two categories, however, the heading of that section should properly reflect both of those two categories. I propose that the present heading "Overview of inhabited dependent territories" be revised to read "Overview of inhabited dependent territories and outlying parts of sovereign states." Atelerixia (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't actually have very strong sources working through that difference, hence the inclusion of the similar entities in this article. The Overview of inhabited dependent territories section header is already the longest in the article, and is the last section so the reader should be familiar with the potential distinction by then. That section also does not include all "outlying parts of sovereign states", under potential definitions of that that first spring to mind. CMD (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why people always argue over which territories should be included and which shouldn't. In my opinion, these territories have already been clearly defined by the United Nation. In the UN M49 list, except 193 UN member states and 2 UN observer states (Palestine and the Holy See), all the remaining political entities have been classified as territories (either self-govening or non-self-governing) by the UN. In the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, only non-self-governing territories (dependent territories) are included.

Whether they are self-governing or not, all territories are considered integral parts of their administrative states. 120.16.24.243 (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Lists of dependent territories section

Four territories in the Lists of dependent territories section are presently listed there as being uninhabited, despite the fact that islands within those territories have year-round populations that consist of either military or research personnel. According to Wikipedia, the British Indian Ocean Territory has approximately 4,000 military and contractor personnel on the atoll of Diego Garcia in that territory, and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands has permanently manned research stations on South Georgia Island and Bird Island in that territory. Also according to Wikipedia, Midway Atoll has a year-round population of approximately 40 individuals, and Wake Atoll is the site of a U.S. Air Force base with a population of approximately 150. For those reasons, it is recommended that the British Indian Ocean Territory and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands be moved from the category of "Overseas territories (uninhabited)" to the general category of "Overseas territories" and that Midway Atoll and Wake Atoll be similarly moved from the category of "Unincorporated unorganized territories (uninhabited)" to the general category of "Unincorporated unorganized territories." Atelerixia (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem with with listing such places as 'inhabited' is that there is an innumeral amount of such places with temporary/military populations scattered all over the globe. If we start to go counter to the consensus that only a permanently settled civilian population counts as 'inhabited' we are going to get all sorts of people coming out the woodwork demanding that places such as Johnston_Atoll#Demographics, Serranilla Bank#Geography, Gough Island#Human presence, and Necker Island (British Virgin Islands) be counted as inhabited. Not to mention Antarctica which has human scientific outposts located all over it. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

To inhabit may have a range of meanings but in this sense means "to occupy as a place of settled residence or habitat." (Merriam-Webster)[34] U.S. soldiers posted abroad are for exampled considered to be resident at their address in the U.S. for census, voting and other purposes. For clarity we might say they lack permanent inhabitants. :Note that one distinction is that permanent inhabitants have a right to remain or return, while temporary residents do not. TFD (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better then to repace the term "uninhabited" with "no indigenous inhabitants"? Atelerixia (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

That term is problematic because it excludes settlers. Bermuda for example has no indigenous population. TFD (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better then to use the term "uninhabited" only for territories that are known to be completely uninhabited, such as Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Kingman Reef, and Clipperton Island. It just doesn't seem right to list the British Indian Ocean Territory as an uninhabited territory when it has a population of some 4,000 military and contractor personnel. Atelerixia (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, it will be confusing to use two different terms to describe the same concept of a lack of a settled civlian population. "Uninhabited" is sufficient for both circumstances. - Wiz9999 (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

A distinction between "uninhabited" territories and territories with "no permanent population" would be informative and readily understandable. Atelerixia (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It would not be easily understandable, because it would rely on specific interpretations of "uninhabited" and "no permanent population". In general they mean the same thing. CMD (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

"Uninhabited" and "no permanent population" have the same meaning. Military personnel, research scientists, miners, and fishermen etc. are not inhabitants of a place. These people are the temporary guests staying in a place for a specific reason (e.g. employment/education) instead of permanent residents (inhabitants). A place with absolutely no people is called a ghost town or abandoned city. 120.16.24.243 (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Australian external territories

I don't know why these Australian external territories have been listed in the article. From the info I could gather, they are the same as those mainland territories (an article published by The Guardian even stated that Norfolk Island is now a part of New South Wales). If these islands can be included simply because they are "overseas", shouldn't we also include those French overseas departments, the Galápagos Islands, Hawaii, Alaska, Hainan Island, Cabinda, the Azores, Madeira, the Canary Islands, and Kaliningrad etc. in our list? 120.16.204.99 (talk)

They are listed because other sources often list them. A brief explanation is in the article. CMD (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

So we should rely on the CIA world fakebook as the only reliable source? A simple google search shows that there are 39 dependent territories in the world:

https://www.worldometers.info/geography/countries-of-the-world/

Australia and Finland do not make the list while French overseas departments are considered dependent territories of mainland France. Some other sources exclude China too, but the other six or seven countries in our list have always been included as administrative powers of dependencies. 120.16.24.243 (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Couple of comments. First, Guardian is wrong, Norfolk Island isn't part of New South Wales (unlike Lord Howe Island), it's just subject to NSW law in certain contexts, like Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands are subject to WA law in certain contexts. They're still separate territories. Secondly, I still don't believe that a 'dependent territory' is anything but a Wikipedia fiction, caused by editors trying to kludge a definition for entities that are only grouped together by various atlas-makers, standards organisations, etc by pure convention, but if we've got to have a list of them, we should be relying on a single source, and preferably not one circularly referencing Wikipedia. I personally don't trust the EU or CIA style guides for this, because they're full of errors. ҉ Randwicked ҉ 11:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not a territory is internal or external is a matter of domestic not international law and therefore makes comparisons difficult, since different countries have very different legal systems. TFD (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

And this is why this article shouldn't be full of original research deciding that certain integral territories (the Australian ones) are 'dependent' and deserving inclusion on this list, whereas others (the French overseas departments, Jan Mayen in Norway, etc.) aren't 'dependent', and don't belong here. It should only report on what reliable sources include or exclude. ҉ Randwicked ҉ 04:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

All territories are intergal parts of their administrative states. The difference is a territory can be self-governing (home rule) or non-self-governing (dependent).

All territories (whether they are self-governing or non-self-governing) can be found in the UN M49 list while the non-self-governing territories (dependent territories) can be found in the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. 120.16.24.243 (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Not all territories are integral parts of their administrative states. Western Australia for example were never an integral part of Great Britain. TFD (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau

There are no sources that call Hong Kong or Macau a dependent territory. According to a 2005 discussion (Talk:Dependent territory/Archive 1#Hong Kong), Hong Kong is included because they are "Special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement." The is a reference to the treaty between the UK and China returning the territory to China. TFD (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

[35] [36] [37] - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Your third source does not say they are dependent states. Your first two sources are U.S. government lists. The CIA factbook lists French overseas collectivities as dependencies as well, although they are part of France. Oddly enough, it omits Hawaii. How is the status of Hawaii any different? Can you find a legal textbook or other secondary source that says they are dependencies? TFD (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I never said that the provided sources were not without issues. That is why I made comparison tables of the four relevant sources in the section above (#Why are the Australian external territories here). In the second to last table I clearly identify Hong Kong and Macau as being more problematic entries to this article, as they are not in all four sources (just in the three I linked here), which is unlike the majority of the other entries currently present on this article.
You ask if I can find a legal textbook or other secondary source that says they are dependencies, but I ask you, can you find a legal textbook or other secondary source that says they are not dependencies? Because of the complicated legal relationship between Hong Kong / Macau and the PRC government in Beijing, much of the text relating to these territories (including their transfer of ownership from the former colonial state) is intentionally vague on the subject of their dependent or non-dependent nature. But to claim there are absolutely no sources present in the article, or here on the talk page, categorising these two as equivalent to dependent territories is also false. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC) edited on 23:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

These sources are unreliable. As I pointed out above, they're WRONG on the status of, at least, Norfolk Island, which hasn't been self-administering since 2015. What I think needs to be understood about these kinds of lists from style guides, etc. is they're NOT put together by teams of international law scholars. They're updated by overworked interns. Often, I suspect, using Wikipedia. I wouldn't be surprised that the continuing wrongness of the EU style guide on Norfolk Island's status is BECAUSE the particular interns who have responsibility for it have been relying directly on this list, which was wrong on the status of Norfolk Island for five bloody years, until fixed very recently. And this article is STILL trying to use style guides to define what is, or what isn't a dependency, while STILL NOT ADEQUATELY DEFINING DEPENDENCY, the underlying issue. This whole page is a mess of circular wrongness. ҉ Randwicked ҉ 07:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Randwicked, The Four Deuces, Roger 8 Roger, and Chipmunkdavis: [38] Do you see the kind of issues that are created by not relying on the sources that we do have on the matter? You get users like Atelerixia here trying to push WP:OR (like an entry for Gilgit-Baltistan onto this article, which is completely unsourced as being a "dependent" territory). Now I agree with Randwicked that we need a better sourced definition of "dependency" on the article to start with. I have advocated in the past [39] that this list have a proper set of criteria drawn up to make it specifically clear what sort of entries are to be included and what is to be excluded. However absolutely no-one has been willing to discuss the matter and it has been claimed that as things currently stand "The criteria are clear". Now I ask everyone, do recent edits to this article and discussions on this talk page make it seem that the current definitions and criteria are adequate?
I propose that we draw up proper criteria, similar to that found in these three lists (List of states with limited recognition#Excluded entities/List of states with limited recognition#Criteria for inclusion, List of sovereign states#Criteria for inclusion, and List of transcontinental countries#Criteria for inclusion) to at least better manage this article. Will the criteria we draw up be perfect? No, I'm sure that it won't (it is problematic on at least one of those three articles), but at least it will be a starting point to better develop this article. Until then I am going to make my own WP:BOLD edit to this article and do the following: [40]. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I notice that there are no quality sources provided for what a dependent territory is. I have been unable to find one. So unless we can define the topic based on reliable sources, we can't get very far. I appreciate that travel guides may not draw any distinction between the relationships of St. Martin and Sint Maarten and their administering states. OTOH, international law makes no distinction between states and their dependent territories. Even the concept that dependent states have a right to self-determination is not helpful, because so do nations within a state. So both Puerto Rico and Quebec have a right to self-determination, although the first is an external territory of the U.S., while the second is a province inside Canada. TFD (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Upon looking further, I found the term "dependent territory" as an entry in some legal dictionaries, but there is no body of literature about the concept. I suggest therefore that we move this article to "Dependent state," which is currently a re-direct to Satellite state. We can then mention dependent territories in the article. TFD (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I think drawing up proper inclusion criteria is a good start. ҉ Randwicked ҉ 05:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I like the work Wiz9999 did in the "Why are the Australian external territories here" section above to find sources and note the territories consistently included. Would this constitute suitable inclusion criteria? --Lasunncty (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. Only one source they gave provided a definition, the CIA Factbook. It's definition is "nonindependent entities associated in some way with a particular independent state." But we cannot take a definition and determine what fits per synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." So if we use the CIA Factbook's definition, we would have to accept its list and attribute it in text. But then we would have to explain why we were using their list. TFD (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not too keen on re-defining the article as a list of "Dependent states" (which I do not see as being much different from that of Associated state). I think we run the risk of the list being reduced down to just four or five entries virtually identical to that of associated states if that is the case, and thus a meaningless list. Very few of the territories that are included in this article can be classified as "states". I would stick to the suggestion of having actual meaningful criteria drawn up for the list as a "dependent territory" list rather than a "dependent state" list. After all, "Dependent territory" is a real concept that exists, even if its definition is often vague/unclear.
While I agree that synthesising a list from those four sources I compared is sub-optimal, ultimately some compromise is going to have to be made when it comes to this issue as well. The way I see it we have three options when it comes to constructing a list only from sources.
One, only include entries included on all four lists and no others (still synthesis, I know).
Two, include every entry on all four lists (may be problematic since this will include "US Minor Outlying Islands", "US Pacific Island Wildlife Refuges", as well as each individual island already covered by these two).
Three, Select one list, reflecting one single source, and dogmatically stick to it with absolutely no deviation (problematic for WP:NPOV reasons).
Drawing up some criteria will realistically be the best way forward for the article, but we may have to accept that portions of the criteria itself may not be fully sourced either and subject to WP:SYNTH challenges. However, I will point out that this has worked reasonably well for the List of states with limited recognition, List of sovereign states, and List of transcontinental countries articles thus far. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

China shouldn't be included in the list. 120.16.24.243 (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Under what justification/reasoning do you make this statement? - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)