Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about List of sovereign states. 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 5

←

Archive 8

→

Denmark/Netherlands

Currently, our listing of Denmark links to Denmark, while our list of the Netherlands links to Kingdom of the Netherlands. Due to this, the extant for Denmark lists it has two self-governing countries, while the list in the Netherlands lists all four constituents. I understand there are subtle legal differences in the relationship between the different areas, but I think it's much more consistent to link Denmark to Kingdom of Denmark and try to explain the situation in the extant. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nightw 17:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree. This is a very good move to make. Outback the koala (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. The Kingdom of Denmark article is very light on sources compared to the Kingdom of the Netherlands article, and if you read the talk page there is a significant contingent of editors who don't think it's really the best description of the relationship between Denmark and Greenland and the Faroes. The Netherlands really is in a unique constitutional situation, and we don't have to worry about "consistency" with other countries. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the whole set up at all, but we have a page, Denmark, which is supposedly not talking about the while sovereign state, and Kingdom of Denmark which supposedly is. The content of the Denmark article does seem confused though. To be clear, my issue with inconsistency is with Denmark, not the Netherlands. I'm not proposing a change in the Netherlands links. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Denmark isn't really "about" the entire sovereign state, it's about the constitutional relationship between Denmark/Greenland/The Faroes. Denmark provides a much more comprehensive overview of the country, and is probably the page that most people would want when they click the word "Denmark" on this page. Greenland, the Faroes, and the Kingdom of Denmark are all mentioned in the lead section of the main Denmark article, so if they want information on those things they can get there easily as well. And yeah, I don't want to change the Netherlands links either. My point is that we shouldn't change Denmark to be "consistent" with the Netherlands when they are two different countries with different constitutional arrangements. We can treat them case-by-case. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the Danish setup is very similar to the Dutch system. Just because the KoD page needs to be developed more does not mean that it is less accurate to direct reader to the proper place. This is a list of states. Outback the koala (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's similar but not identical. The Kingdom of the Netherlands has its own charter, distinct from the Constitution of the Netherlands, in which Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, and the Netherlands are defined as separate countries. Denmark is a single country with two autonomous regions and a single constitution. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Orange Tuesday is correct. The two systems are not equivalent. Ladril (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence? You're typically good at finding sources, got anything on this? Nightw 18:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Night w. on need of sources. I dont think the two systems are the same but they are very similar as far as the relationship between consituent countries goes. To me in seems the KoN is a little more codified. Outback the koala (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Rigsfællesskabet was about the relations between the different constituent parts of Denmark? I'm sure they're not exactly equivalent, but they do seem to have a lot in common with each other. France has something similar as well, but the France page leads to information on the state. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I kind of feel like the burden of presenting sources is on the people who actually want to change away from the status quo. What am I supposed to find, a book that says "The Netherlands is not like Denmark?" Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok so I came here from the same discussion on the Europe list. I'd like to make a note that after looking at the sources, I must admit I was wrong. Under the constitution, Denmark, Greenland and the Faroes constitute three constituent parts of a single unitary State. Under their respective home rule acts, Greenland and the Faroes declared themselves "self-governing territories" within this state, which altered the nature of the state but did not alter the constitution.

"After the introduction of the democratic Constitution in 1849, the Danish Parliament unilaterally extended the Constitution to the Faroe Islands...the Faroese found that they had been incorporated into another people's nation state." "Greenland continued to be ruled as a colony until it was integrated into Denmark in a revision of the Danish Constitution in 1953." (Council of Europe, 1996, p104–105)
"The two measures of home rule...have made an illusion of the unitary State, and that Denmark today is a new kind of State construction, a "rigsfællesskabet", a form of commonwealth. Or, as Dr. [Frederik] Harhoff puts it: "...a tripartite community of separate and autonomous parts, each with their own original powers, but with continental Denmark as the hegemonical part with residual authority." (Council of Europe, 1996, p107)
"Greenland in 1953 was named an administrative district rather than a colony. But historically as well as a matter of state theory, 'Denmark' is a more ambiguous concept than we generally allow. 'This constitution applies to all parts of the Danish realm,' article 1 of the Constitution affirms. Thus, the Danish state comprises several parts, bound together by a common constitution. What this unity means, what the units are, and how the connections should be understood is less clear from the legalese. For an indication, one must consult the drafts... Page 28 states that the 'Danish Realm' comprises three parts: Denmark, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland. Article 3 of the Constitution defines a common legislative, executive, and judicial branch for these three parts of the Danish kingdom." (Østergård, 2002)
"Clearly, it is hard to classify Greenland's status within Denmark. Formally, it is an integral part of a unitary state with autonomous authority in a limited number of areas." (Loukacheva, 2007, p44)

Unitary state by law, federacy by nature (but still only one state) is how I've read it. Now I haven't looked at much on the situation in the Netherlands, but I am easily led to my old assumption--even more so than I was with Denmark--that the Netherlands is the State and the Kingdom is jst a monarchy. Four separate constitutions and the Charter shared between them does not mention a state, the king being described as simply Head of the Kingdom. Any thoughts? Sorry for the length, if you read through it all I salute you! Rennell435 (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Gibraltar

As per the reference provided by the article Gibraltar, Spain's position is as follows:

Spain accepts the existence of British sovereignty in Gibraltar.
Spain disputes the location of the border between Spain and Gibraltar, arguing that the legal border lies significantly to the south of the border on the ground.
Spain does not accept any right of Britain to territorial waters or airspace (among other things) arising from its sovereignty in Gibraltar.
Spain argues that Britain should give its sovereignty over Gibraltar to Spain.

It seems to me that the first of these is the most important here. That Spain actually disputes the existence of British sovereignty in Gibraltar is a common myth, but it is a myth. Pfainuk talk 21:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So it claims part...? Nightw 12:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes - roughly the northernmost 800 metres of the modern territory is disputed. Given the size of Gibraltar, this is fairly significant. We have articles at Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain and Disputed status of Gibraltar, though I would hardly recommend either. While there is a dispute, describing Gibraltar as a whole as "disputed by Spain" is inaccurate. Pfainuk talk 17:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Nightw 18:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds similar to what I've heard from other areas. Would it be fair to say instead that Spain disputes the British right to sovereignty? There's a subtle nuance we have to capture. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Spain's position on Gibraltar as a whole is even more subtle than that, I think. Spain accepts the legal legitimacy of British sovereignty in Gibraltar - that Britain has a right to sovereignty in Gibraltar (albeit limited with respect to territorial waters and airspace) - but also asserts that she has rights with respect to Gibraltar. The argument - at least by my understanding - is that the existence of Gibraltar in and of itself disrupts Spain's territorial integrity and that Britain should remedy this by handing sovereignty of Gibraltar over to Spain. Pfainuk talk 20:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So can you suggest an amendment? I'd say it's a sovereignty dispute and prominent enough to warrant a mention in some form. But, of course, correctly. Nightw 21:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait - as you know I kinda got caught up in something.

I think, in principle, the best thing would need to include a link to Disputed status of Gibraltar. Now, that article is so bad that it probably needs starting again from scratch (though such is my experience of Gibraltar articles that I rather also feel that it's probably more trouble than it's worth - at least for me personally - to get involved in trying to fix it up). But it is our article on the subject and at least in theory it's the place where people should go to find information.

So, on that basis, what do you think of "status disputed with Spain"? Does that manage to put the point or does it imply a sovereignty dispute? Pfainuk talk 18:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry this is coming so late, didn't see there was a response here.

That seems like an improvement on the status quo, although I would word it "status disputed by Spain" as the UK is quite happy for whatever status Gibraltar wants (is that correct?). I assume that is meant for the bracket in the UK extant, the Spain extant will have to be changed as well. "Spain calls for sovereignty over Gibraltar."? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, thought I'd responded here. Yes, the British position is that the UK will accept any status that Gibraltar wants, except that if that means Britain leaving the territory, Spain gets right of first refusal (i.e. Spain has to agree before Gibraltar can become independent). Gibraltar argues that that particular point is obsolete and that no such restriction exists.

On the second point, it sounds a bit stilted to me, but I can't think of anything better. I will put these in the article. Thanks, Pfainuk talk 09:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Bundling of "UN observer states" and "member states of UN Specialized Agencies"

I think it is inappropriate to bundle "UN observer states" (i.e. the Holy See) and "member states of UN Specialized Agencies". Why? Because:

"Observer state" is a formal, legal UN term. The Holy See is a UN observer state.
In contrast "member states of UN Specialized Agencies" is terminology that has been invented here on Wikipedia.
Also the inclusion of Kosovo only as the only "member state of UN Specialized Agencies" is misleading. It suggests that Kosovo in some way (in the eyes of the UN) stands in a superior status (in terms of sovereignty) to that of Niue or the Cook Islands. There is no reason why Kosovo should be listed spearate to Niue or the Cook Islands if this "member states of UN Specialized Agencies" bundle tag is to be used.

For more clarity, this is what a report of the UN has to say about Niue and the Cook Islands:[1]

10. The question of whether the Cook Islands and Niue were “independent” entities, i.e.-
States, with full treaty making capacity was also considered. The Cook Islands and Niue maintained the status of self-governing territories in free association with New Zealand. In view of this special relationship with New Zealand, which discharged the external affairs and defense of the Cook Islands and Niue, neither the Cook Islands nor Niue could invoke the “all States” clause to participate in treaties deposited with the Secretary-General unless specifically invited to participate in a treaty. 26 However, the responsibility of the Cook Islands and Niue to conduct their own international relations and particularly to conclude treaties has evolved substantially over the years: the Cook Islands became a member of WHO in 1984, of FAO in 1985, of UNESCO in 1985, and of ICAO in 1986; Niue became a member of UNESCO in 1993 and of the WHO in 1994; 11. In a Declaration dated 10 November 1988, New Zealand stated, by express provision and with the consent of all parties concerned, that its future participation in international agreements would no longer extend to the Cook Islands or Niue; in 1991 the Cook Islands sought, and obtained, full participation in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) Preparatory Committee and the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change (INC), providing further evidence that the international community had accepted the Cook Islands as a “State” under international law. Consequently, and in light of their admission to the membership of specialized agencies without any specifications or limitations, the Secretariat recognized the full treaty-making capacity of the
Cook Islands in 1992 and that of Niue in 1994.

My proposal is that:

if there are Editors who wish to retain the use of the term "member states of UN Specialized Agencies" - please, such Editors, provide a good source as to where the UN actually uses this terminology. Please show us that it is not made up here on Wikipedia.
if "member states of UN Specialized Agencies" is dropped as a term - I suggest the Kosovo entry be moved to the section for all the other partially recognised states.
if "member states of UN Specialized Agencies" is kept as a term - I suggest it be listed separate to that of UN Observer States (why confuse the two) and that Niue and the Cook Islands be added with appropriate and prominent notes concerning their status in terms of sovereignty. For Kosovo, the current note is fine and has been agreed on...I agree this will be a somewhat unfortunate outcome....as Niue and the Cook Islands do not, as I understand it, even assert independence as such........but in the eyes of the UN they are not in any way in an inferior status (in terms of sovereignty) to Kosovo. The article at present wrongly suggests they are....and that is plainly not the case - Niue and the Cook Islands are recognised as having full treaty making powers and they can deposit treaties with the UN....Kosovo, correct me if I am wrong...cannot even do that....Certainly, Kosovo does not show up on the index contained on this UN Treaty Data Base page [2].

Naturally, this is going to raise political protests....and I welcome any other reasonable, sourced suggestions on how this situation can be improved...Maybe I haven't thought of all possibilities. It doesn't have to be a major issue if the incorrectness of the current position is recognised and Editors just look for a solution. NelsonSudan (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Take a look over Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria for current proposals. A recent RfC demonstrated similar dissatisfaction with the current setup, which was only adopted recently. Your last two "if" proposals are the ones currently being discussed. Nightw 12:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to be brief as I can:

We don't use the term "member states of UN Specialized Agencies" as an official term, we say that the column "indicates which non-member states participate in the United Nations System through membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency or one of the specialized agencies of the United Nations." see here. Since that is too cumbersome to put in a table, we simplify that "member of one or more related agencies". The UN lists those 16 agencies we're calling "related" together here: [3], describing them as "Autonomous organizations linked to the UN through special agreements". Those organizations all have member states.
The UN does sporadically use the phrase "member states of Specialized Agencies", usually when talking about who can join a certain organization or sign a treaty. It's not a very commonly used phrase during the day to day operations of the UN but here are some examples to show that it is a real term that we didn't invent: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] (pg 200) [10] (pg 15) [11] [12]
Observer state is technically an informal term. The Vatican City is officially described a "Non-member State having received a standing invitation to participate as observer in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly" Needless to say this does not go in the table either.
We were eventually going to have some kind of a vote or discussion about where Kosovo should go on this page, but the options are either having the Specialized+Observer bundled together or having two distinct categories for Specialized and Observer. We can have this discussion if people want it. I don't care either way.
The addition of CI and Niue is a separate issue being discussed above. If they ever do get added they'll presumably be added into whatever section Kosovo is in. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to open a preference vote whenever everyone else is fine with it. We can garner some outside opinions through editor assistance and (maybe) the centralised discussion template. I promise to drop the stick after it's finished... ;) Nightw 13:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that there is a common view here that the current position is simply incorrect. Thank you User Orange Tuesday for collating sources where you believe the term "member states of UN Specialized Agencies" is used. You went to some care and trouble and that is appreciated.

However, I think most of the documents you have pointed to do not in fact even use the term. Here, I will go through each source you cited:

(1) [13] use the term but it is not a formal UN document...just a loosely written webpage (see who clumsy its use of capitalised terms is);
(2) [14] does not use the term - This is a much better source (because it is a formal, legal UN document) but it only uses the following wording "to seek the views of Member States, members of the specialized agencies and observers..." See the distinction between "Member States" and then mere "members";
(3)[15] does not use the term - Not as good a source as (2) but again it uses the wording almost identical to that at (2) "all States Members of the United Nations or members of the specialized agencies"....Again note distinction between "States Members" and mere "members";
(4) [16] does not use the term but of all the sources you mention is really the closest to using the term...The source itself is, once again, not a formally, legal document of the UN...It has no legal effects...Not a UN Resolution etc...But it is a formal UN document nonethelss...The terminology it uses is "States members of specialized agencies that are not members of the United Nations";
(5) [17] - This is an excellent source. Like document at (2), it is a formal UN legally binding document........but by now I see a pattern or "Convention"....Where the UN is adopting a formal legal document, it refers (exactly as at (2)) to "Member States or members of specialized agencies"....Once again....Note the distinction between "Member States" and mere "members";
(6) [18] does not use the term......This is once again an excellent source (a formal UN document with legal standing) but once again the familiar "Convention" is apparent....i.e. it uses ""Member States or members of specialized agencies" - By now I don't think I need to point out the distinction again!;
(7) (pg 200) [19] does not use the term but as at (4) it does use something very similar - "States Members of specialized agencies" - But, again, it does not affect the pattern....The document is not a formal legal document of the UN having any legal effects...It is a good source....a UN publication.....But clearly is not a formal UN instrument having any legal effects - it does not compromise the clear "Convention" ;
(8) (pg 15) [20] does not use the term - See the exact same remarks I made in respect of (7); and
(9) [21] does not use the term - Again, it is a "first order" perfect source and perfectly follows the "Convention" I have pointed to of referring to "States Members of the United Nations" and [mere - no mention of "State"] members of specialized agencies.

CONCLUSIONS:

(I)In formal UN legal measures the term "member states of UN Specialized Agencies" is never used. The term "members of UN specialized agencies is used". Accordingly, "member states of UN Specialized Agencies" is an inappropriate term for our Article.

(II) If UN Convention is key to how the "States" should be listed on the article page...there is no basis for listing Kosovo in a way that suggests that it is somehow more sovereign than Niue or the Cook Islands.

Hopefully we can quickly make decisions and move forward. Hope one of you editors will do whatever typing is needed to bring us forward to deciding what change is preferred - a vote or something like that if there is no consensus. NelsonSudan (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Again, we don't use the term "member states of UN Specialized Agencies" as a formal term. The phrase "member state of a UN Specialized Agency" appears once, in a sentence outside the main body of the list, as an informal description. "Specialized Agency" is the formal term, "UN" is an adjective, and we describe them as having member states because that's how they typically describe themselves. See for example [22]. If you want to change the wording, that's fine. Propose an alternative.

2. This list isn't solely based on the United Nations. We have inclusion criteria here: List_of_sovereign_states#Criteria_for_inclusion. Any state which meets that criteria, whatever their involvement in the UN system, is included on the list. Whether or not CI and Niue fit that criteria is a matter of ongoing debate. IF they do, they will be bundled with Kosovo. If they don't, they will not be included on the list. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that you have overstated the position, NelsonSudan, when you say that there is a "common view here that the current position is simply incorrect". There is no "correct" or "incorrect" about it. We have a list of sovereign states. We can divide that list in several different ways. There is no "correct" or "incorrect" way to divide and organize that list. We have, by consensus, divided that list in one possible way here that makes the most sense to the majority of involved editors--States that are full members of the UN, states that are not members of the UN and do not participate in any UN organizations, and states that are not members, but participate in some UN organizations. Your implication that this is somehow an "incorrect" way to organize our list is simply wrong. If you want to organize the list in some other manner, then there is already a discussion forum for that (the link was provided to you by Nightw above). If you can build a consensus for organizing the list in some other way, then fine. But as Orange Tuesday has clearly pointed out, the current arrangement is well-justified and has strong support from other editors. You will have to build a consensus for modifying it and, honestly, you haven't provided me with any compelling reasons to do so. --Taivo (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

User Taivo - Not much to say to that...all common sense and I fully agree...Correct or in need of improvement...whatever really, I'm not into being pedantic. What I have said has been understood (by OT any way). User OT - Re. "we don't use the term "member states of UN Specialized Agencies" as a formal term etc"...I think you know what I have said. I think the way the states are currently bundled is problematic for the reasons I've mentioned....Formal or informal etc...Regardles. Do you disagree with me? Agreed that the list is not based solely on the UN list...After all, Kosovo or Northern Cyprus and places like that would not figure on a UN list of sovereign states....But do you think I am right (or wrong) that the current bundling is not good? I'd be grateful for reasoning too. NelsonSudan (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Observer states aren't bundeled with members of a specialized agency. By definition, Observer states are members of a specialized agency. Only states which have joined a specialized agency may apply to become an Observer state:

"Non-Member States of the United Nations, which are members of one or more specialized agencies, can apply for the status of Permanent Observer." [23]

The middle section contains all the "Non-Member States" (using the UN's definition of the term provided above). Those states which have become Observer states have this highlighted in their entry. We haven't merged two distinct groups of states together. Perhaps we should retitle the section to "Member states of UN Specialized Agencies" so this more obvious?

We could subdivide the list Ad infinitum (why not split the Security Council members from the "regular" UN members?), but there's nothing wrong with the current setup. TDL (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Danlaycock. We have three sections here--1) UN members; 2) nonmembers, but members of a UN organization; 3) nonmembers of everything. There's nothing at all wrong with this categorization and the majority of active editors here support it. But if a person doesn't like it, they can sort the list alphabetically or sort the list by sovereignty disputes before getting offended over the placement of Kosovo (which is the crux of this issue). --Taivo (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Didn't notice that before. That's synthesis. Please provide a source from the United Nations that Kosovo has been recognised as a "non-member state". And while you're both entitled to your opinion, the recent RfC that was conducted concluded (at least 7 out of 9 participants) that there is something wrong with the current setup and consensus was for reducing the number of categories. Nightw 22:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

NightW, if you're talking about the RfC that you recently initiated, it is flawed in its conclusions because it was specifically requested that previous participants in the discussion not be involved, and our comments were deleted. So unless there is a full discussion including everyone, then you cannot draw definitive conclusions from that RfC. It is also flawed because the discussion wandered here and there and the various "votes" that you are counting said a wide variety of things (mostly based on whether or not they were supporters of Kosovo and not on the quality or validity of the sorting mechanism). There is no single, focused discussion there and no single, focused straw poll--people chimed in at various points in the discussion based on where the discussion was at that moment in time. And, unless I'm mistaken, Kosovo is not a member of the UN. Any list of UN members shows that. I was not under the impression that the UN went around listing its "non-members". There is a point where requesting a source for something is ridiculous. Kosovo, Somaliland, Vatican City, et al. are not members of the UN since it can be shown by reliable sources that they are not included in any list of membership. You might as well request that I provide a reliable source that I'm not a personal assistant of the Pope. --Taivo (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, I'll be more than happy to initiate another preference-based survey inclusive of everyone. The last one, as I've pointed out, was simply used to determine uninvolved opinion regarding the setup. An idea was put forward and the majority of participants got behind it, calling for a reduction in divisions. I agree that consensus was the wrong word to use but it did demonstrate outside opinion on the matter and the opinions were mostly in agreement.
You've overlooked what was stated above by the other user (I wasn't responding to you), "The middle section contains all the "Non-Member States" (using the UN's definition of the term provided above)..." He's clearly misinterpreted the text he's provided. Nightw 06:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What exactly have I misinterpreted? It seems to me that it's you that has misread what was stated. I never claimed that the UN has recognized them as a "non-member state", you put those words in my mouth. Nor is that claim made anywhere in the article. If it was, you'd have a case about SYN. As it is, I'm not sure what your point is. TDL (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you need me to point it out better. You claimed, "The middle section contains all the "Non-Member States" (using the UN's definition of the term provided above)..." Did you mean something else by this or was I correct in stating that you just claimed the quote you provided to be the UN's definition of "Non-Member State" and that, according to this, Kosovo and the Vatican City are the only Non-Member States...? Nightw 17:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I clearly do need you to point it out better for me. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I claimed that Kosovo has been recognized by the UN as a Non-Member State. ("Please provide a source from the United Nations that Kosovo has been recognised as a "non-member state".") Care to direct me to where I made this claim?

You're drawing conclusions that I never made. I ment to say precisely what I said. Kosovo meets the UN's definition (as per the quote I provided) of a "Non-Member State". Whether or not the UN has formally recognized them as a "Non-Member State" is a different matter entirely. I'm certainly not claiming that they have, nor is the article. The reason I included the term "Non-Member State" in quotes was because I was referring to the concept/definition and not the formal title. Perhaps that wasn't obvious enough, but hopefully this clears it up. TDL (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

But you interpreted the quote as a definition and failed to back it up. You read it to mean that "members of one or more specialised agencies" are by virtue of said membership "Non-Member States of the United Nations", rather than the middle segment being a qualifier or condition of a non-member state's eligibility. Nightw 21:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so now we get to the crux of the matter. Why didn't you just AGF and explain how you were interpreting the quote in the first place?

It seems to me that you've "clearly misinterpreted" the use of commas in the quote. The comma usage imply that it's a parenthetical phrase. If the intention of the writer was to say "Non-Member States who have joined a specialized agency" then it would be grammatically incorrect to include the commas. As written, the it seems pretty clear to me that the phrase is a definition.

Anyways, I'm not sure how any of this is important. The term Non-Member State is never used in the article so I'm not sure why we are agonizing over it. TDL (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

One or two of the editors said there was nothing wrong with the current "bundling". Of course there is: (1) Cook Islands and Niue are left out of the [what I'll call for simplicity] THE KOSOVO CATEGORY? Why? What is the critieria here? (2) Why is the Holy See included in the Kosovo category? It is totally distinct....expressly recognised as a State by the UN as a non-observer STATE...very much distinct from others. NelsonSudan (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ofcourse...Kosovo and the Cook Islands/Niue are not natuall bedfellows in a bundle either....After all, Kosovo is not recognised by the UN as having treaty making powers...It cannot deposit treaties with the UN....Correct me if I am wrong there? Niue and Cook Islands can....Either way...the Bundling is very politically lopsided here....Kosovo being singled out for funny treatment. NelsonSudan (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Kosovo is not singled out. It is listed in the category of non-UN member states that have membership in an affiliated organization. Right there next to Vatican City, which is in the same category--not a member of the big club, but a member of some little clubs. That's not an unusual or "funny" grouping at all. It illustrates a descending scale of UN involvement from full membership to full non-membership. There's nothing unusual about it at all. The Cook Islands/Niue issue has not been resolved at this point and the issues are much more complex, so trying to use them to make some statement about Kosovo's placement is using an orange to make an apple pie. --Taivo (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

We have, it if matters, purposefully placed Vatican City above Kosovo instead of listing alphabetically within that section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, a move which goes unexplained in the article... Nightw 17:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So let's sort it alphabetically then. That would solve that problem TDL (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I'd prefer to wait for the outcome of a survey on ways to reduce the number of categories. I'll begin drafting one this weekend, if I have time. Nightw 21:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Re. "Actually, Kosovo is not singled out." Yes it is compared to Niue and Cook Islands....Re. "It is listed in the category of non-UN member states that have membership in an affiliated organization." Again, so why aren't Niue and Cook Islands listed here? Re. "That's not an unusual or "funny" grouping at all." Yes it is. It leaves out Niue and CI. Also it artificially bundles together two very different sets of states...The Holy See is recognised as a sovereign state with the power to make treaties and deposit them with the UN....Kosovo is not recognised by the UN as such and cannot even deposit treaties with the UN! Thats rather peculiar...And again, if being a member of affiliated UN agencies is the criteria here, why aren't Niue and CI listed? Re. "The Cook Islands/Niue issue has not been resolved at this point and the issues are much more complex" Are you seriously suggesting that the issues around Kosov are resolved? No they are not....Your "bundling" falls apart if you do not include them....If they are not inlcluded, there is not even a tenuous ground for listing Kosovo with Holy See...Re. "We have, it if matters, purposefully placed Vatican City above Kosovo instead of listing alphabetically within that section." Dear Chipmunkdavis - I think you have, by saying that, spotted clearly just how incongruous these two bedfellows make in the one category! Frankly bundling Kosovo with Holy See looks ridicuolous and is misleading. At the very least the current "bundling" does not work until the Niue CI entries are resolved...Until then, another bundling manner needs to be agreed on....but now I am repeating myself. Any other input? NelsonSudan (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm utterly unconvinced, NelsonSudan, and there's no evidence here that you have convinced any of the other regular contributors here to change their positions on this matter. I would welcome the effort if Nightw wants to initiate a more organized and coherent discussion on this among the involved editors (while an RfC is helpful in some cases, where there is a committed group of editors on an issue, it has been my experience that an agreement among the involved editors is preferable to herding in a bunch of editors who have only shown up just to cast a vote). There are basically three issues to address as I see them: 1) 3 sections or 4 in the list (separating Kosovo and Vatican City); 2) what to do about Cook Islands and Niue; 3) what to do about Palestine. The current arrangement had the broadest support in the most recent mediation among active editors, so other than codifying it in a binding mediation, 1) is probably not going to change from the status quo without a better reason than any that you have presented so far, NelsonSudan. (Actually, we've heard all your reasons before and most editors have rejected them.) But 2 and 3 still need some discussion and consensus building around something we can point to as "our consensus decision". --Taivo (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Might as well hold off on the Palestine discussion until after September. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but I think we can probably skip that debate if we can agree on a good method of reducing the categories. The way I see it is we either have just members, or members and observers in the first cat. Nightw 21:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

But, if you recall, that "members and observers" was the previous status quo and was objected to by some vocal editors. That's why we had the mediation and developed the 3-category approach. --Taivo (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? The mediation was about the use of "widely recognized" as the sorting criteria. Nightw 04:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The mediation may have started out as about "widely recognized", but it ended up with the three-category sortable sandbox rather than the previous status quo, which was a non-sortable two-category system. Where we began and where we ended were two different places. --Taivo (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but (sorry) I'm not suggesting that we remove the single sortable list, I just want to get a clear consensus on what the default sort should be. Once we have that clear-cut consensus, whatever it be, the issue can finally be archived as resolved. Nightw 19:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care what the default sort is, but there were many objections to the alphabetical sort since it grouped Somaliland and Abhkazia in with everyone else, and there were other objections to the sovereignty disputes sort since it grouped UN members Israel and the Koreas in with nonmembers. While there were some objections, there were far fewer to using the present sort (UN participation) as the default sort. It also seemed to feel "more comfortable" to most editors since it generally replicated the arrangement of the previous non-sortable list, except moving Vatican City and Kosovo into the list of states that are not members of the UN General Assembly, but that are members of affiliated UN organizations. --Taivo (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Not much to say about what you have said Taivo...Getting editors involved and building a consenss for a change is obviously the way forward. I 100% agree, obviously, with that. Rather disappointed you did not bother to give any reasons for your opinions though. You have ignored what I have said. For example, you have ignored that I said that it was not credible for Kosovo to be listed with the Holy See at a time when Niue and CI are not so listed. You have passed over that and the other points I have made. That's regrettable. Consensus should be based on reasoned discussions...not just ignoring the views of other editors. Night w - The old 2 category approach had worked for years and was credible and "clean"...It is by far preferable to what is there now. NelsonSudan (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I read everything you wrote, NelsonSudan, but I disagree with much of it. Disagreement with the premise of your arguments and your conclusions is not the same as "passed over". Your words were simply unconvincing. I support the status quo, so I don't have to convince you of anything--unless you build a consensus for change, then the status quo stands and I don't see you convincing anyone else either. --Taivo (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

User Taivo - needless to say you are fully entitled to offer no reasons for whatever view you offer...or to offer no view at all ...or stop participating completely. I fully agree. Other editors can draw their own conclusions if they want from your approach which is to not bother providing reasons for your view.

Moving on, other Editors...As I see it (and have set out my reasons in greater length above) Kosovo is being singled out for special treatment as compared to, in particuolar, Cook Islands and Niue....No objective justification for this has been offered. The supposed reasons for listing Kosovo with Holy See are not applied to Niue & Cook Islands. Also, there is so little ground for bundling the Holy See with any other state...It truly stands alone in terms of its status in the eyes of the UN. All in all, do the other editors here really believe this really meeets the "smell test" of reasonableness and objectivity? I don't. But perhaps I am alone? Pipe up with your views please!

Some one mentioned holding off on changes etc until some point in the future...perhaps until after CI and Niue entries are resolved. Why would we do that? If the current "bundling" does not stand up to scrutiny, we have to address it now. Thats' if we believe in a high quality wikipedia. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To respond to some of your points, I don't think we've ever treated Kosovo specially as compared to CI & Niue. The NZ associates are a completely different issue and I, and I think most if not all other editors of this page, would prefer to treat them separately from Kosovo rather than further bog down arguments. As for the bundling of Kosovo and the Holy See, that's not fully settled either, it was just the setup we all agreed on in order to make the smallest amount of progress from a protracted debate. Night w is waving around a stick on the issue I believe, and I'm personally not convinced they should be bundled together either. This does not mean the views of editors such as Taivo should be dismissed so lightly, that will not get you far on this page. As for holding off, that is a suggestion in regards to Palestine, a state whose position in the international system could be greatly changed this september. Noone is suggesting an enforced break on anything else. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, NelsonSudan, the current arrangement does indeed meet the criteria of reasonableness and objectivity. It is based on objective criteria--1) is the state a member of the UN?; 2) if not, is the state a member of a UN affiliated organization? Very simple, straightforward, clear and objectively verifiable. Are there other ways to organize the list? Sure, but this is the one that the majority of editors preferred in the last mediation. You're welcome, as I have said before, to propose something different, but unless you can build a consensus for your ideas, they're just your ideas and not what is implemented in Wikipedia. I prefer the UN-based organization that exists because it is based on the only criteria that the majority of people tend to use to measure true, unfettered statehood--UN membership. Becoming a UN member is a special status. It's also easily verifiable. All other formulations that were offered during the mediation were based on heavy levels of WP:OR and WP:SYN and required immense amounts of sweat equity for very little actual benefit. In the end, the other formulations ended up moving Kosovo down the list and nothing more. That's why Kosovo has always been the lynchpin for any agreement. You can read it in the arguments for those who oppose the present configuration. --Taivo (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

User Chipmunkdavis - Re. "The NZ associates are a completely different issue [from the Kosovo entry]". I would like you to think that through. As per what Taivo has said immediately above "The current arrangement does indeed meet the criteria of reasonableness and objectivity. It is based on objective criteria--1) is the state a member of the UN?; 2) if not, is the state a member of a UN affiliated organization?" When applying these "objective criteria" Niue, Kosovo and CI all meet them.......but Kosovo is singled out and is the only state included. That's why they are not completely different issues. If thats the criteria...all three states have to be treated the same. Thats objectivity. Chipmunkdavis, you suggested that it would no good for me to "dismiss" the views of users like Taivo...With respect, I have not done that. I have pointed out that, in effect, User Taivo has offered no real reasoned view at all to justify the inconsistency whereby Kosovo is singled out in this way. In my opinion, he has not engaged on the point. I am not about dismissing any one's views and would like you to engage with me on the point too and try to figure out a better bundling solution. Do you agree or disagree with me that this is a real problem? You seemed to above but you haven't suggested a solution. I guess thats needed if we are to progress. NelsonSudan (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have. Let me repeat, we have never on this page singled out Kosovo against the CI/Niue. The criteria Taivo was talking about were the sorting criteria, which determine how the entries on this page are arranged. The inclusion criteria are different, and that is the issue to do with the CI/Niue. If it is decided to include the CI/Niue, they will go (under the current criteria, as far as I can tell) in the middle section. If you wish to discuss whether the CI/Niue should be included, please place your thoughts in #Cook Islands and Niue RFC. If you wish to discuss whether Kosovo should be together with the Vatican, I'm sure that can be discussed. If you continue to bring up the CI/Niue out of the section devoted to them, the conversation will continue to be derailed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, NelsonSudan, Chipmunkdavis has summarized the issue precisely. Cook Islands/Niue are not even in the list yet, so where to put them in the list is a moot question. The issue concerning Cook Islands/Niue is whether they should be included at all, not where they should be placed. If they were included, then they would go in the middle section along with Vatican City and Kosovo in the current arrangement. But as I said (far) above, talking about Kosovo and Cook Islands in the same breath is apples and oranges right now and clouds the waters. --Taivo (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Chipmunkdavis - Your explanation was crystal clear! I fully understand it. I'm really surprised it wasn't explained like that before. You are a decent communicator!

Parking the Niue/CI issue (to the extent we can), I still see the current bundling criteria as still not passing any objective "smell test". Why? Well, there are several reasons but here I will mention two:

1 - As I mentioned above, why bundle the Holy See which stands in such a unique position and has a very different character (it is not a partially recognised state etc) with Kosovo? Its an artificial, very much contrived bundling. The sort of thing I suppose that gives WP a bad name...Yes, objective criteria has been come up with for doing so...but they are very contrived criteria. Holy See stands alone. It is the only member recognised as a sovereign government by the UN without being a memeber and the only observer member. Moreover, the Holy See is even more distinct in that its membership is not linked to it even having a territory (Holy See, not Vatican is the member). It's all very contrived listing it with Kosovo! It does not pass a smell test of objectivity for me.......You'll have to make up your own mind.
2 - Kosovo is lumped into a category that hinges on a "UN relationship". That is to say, the reason it is lumped in with Holy See is because it is a member of a UN agency. But, we have already accepted (by virtue of the absence of Niue / CI) that the nature of that type of "UN relationship" does not even entitle a state to even get on the list....so it seems very "smelly" that it affects where the state sits on the list. We are not being consistent in our approach.

All good fun. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

NelsonSudan, the reason Wikipedia is not acceptable as a reference is that there is no control over the qualifications of its editors, not because a serious group of editors have come to a consensus on how to organize a list of the world's states that you disagree with because it doesn't place Kosovo where you want to place it. Cook Islands and Niue are not on the list at this time because they do not pass the tests we use here of what constitutes a state. Neither do Scotland and Wales, but they are also independently members of organizations that make them look to the outside observer like independent states rather than constituents of the United Kingdom. Your argument on that account, trying to still use the Cook Islands situation to argue for Kosovo, is not convincing. --Taivo (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Taivo...I've spotted a pattern in your postings here....I always agree with the very obvious things you say about WP (like above, WP can't be used as a reference). I'm sure you'd agree if I said on English language Wikipedia, we use English.......but verbage like that hasn't to do with the points. What a contrast to User Chipmunkdavis who communicated some important points earlier with the minimum of word count. Beyond that, I think you smell things differently to me.

To me the current bundling is obviously contrived and micky mouse...it stinks to me of some "Kosovo POV".

Other Editors. Is it really appropriate to bundle the Holy See with Kosovo? NelsonSudan (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an entirely separate point... but the list also says the Vatican City is a member..even if in the note it says it is administered by the Holy See....This is a child like error. The Vatican is not a member of the UN. The Holy See is. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet another point showing how contrived the current bundling of HS and Kosovo is......The UN does not bundle the two together that way.....The UN does not exactly bundle the HS with any one....but "Palestine" is sort of closely bundled on this page [24] ... however, that is as an "Entity", not as a "State"...so probably is not useful for our criteria. The Palestine entry on our list is to the State of Palestine whereas there it is to the PLO effectively. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps your insults, NelsonSudan, are better left elsewhere. Chipmunkdavis said exactly the same thing that I have said--that the issue of Kosovo is grouping, but the issue of Cook Islands is inclusion. At least, after several subsequent posts, you've stopped trying to argue Kosovo's placement based on Cook Islands. Your accusation that the present grouping is "contrived and mickey mouse" is rather insulting to the serious editors who have labored over this issue and discussed it for a very long time. You are a relative child to this discussion, and your childish insults are not welcome. Had you read the complete text of the recent mediation (not Nightw's RfC, but the actual mediation), you would see that your arguments for moving Kosovo are not new, but were made and rejected on multiple occasions by a majority of the editors involved. That's why no one wants to really engage with you here, because it's all been done before and is, frankly, boring and repetitive. --Taivo (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Clearly I've hit a raw nerve with you Taivo. I'm not one for tit for tat type stuff but understand if you are bored. Other Editors...The points remain. Is it really appropriate to bundle the Holy See with Kosovo? NelsonSudan (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Read the mediation, NelsonSudan, and you'll have all the answers you need. And stop your attempts to nit pick my user page as a continuation of your attempts to discredit my opinions here. If you can't keep your opinions focused on the issue at hand here, then do not simply shotgun your failure to convince anyone here onto our personal pages. You have not hit a "raw nerve", NelsonSudan, you are simply reiterating discredited arguments from a previous mediation. If you are unwilling to research that mediation, then it's not our problem to rehash the same arguments. --Taivo (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you have only been editing on Wikipedia for a month, NelsonSudan, perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with several policies: WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF for starters. --Taivo (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I am drafting an rfc over the proposed reduction in categories. Since this particular thread doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast, let's agree to disagree here. You'll get a chance to voice your thoughts again during the rfc. I'll post it hopefully sometime over the weekend. Nightw 07:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Can I make a request on the RfC front? We've already discussed these issues extensively. We don't need to spend another month slinging essays back and forth at each other. So can we please, please, just put it to an open vote and call it done? I don't know if I speak for most editors but I certainly think that the 3 category and 4 category systems would both be reasonable and verifiable and everything else. This whole debate is a matter of preference, not correctness, and it could be over in a day or two if we just took a vote. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Orange Tuesday. Thank you, Nightw, for taking the initiative on preparing the RfC. --Taivo (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Again Taivo, I am not going to respond to personalised things you say about me. Not my style. Your tone seems angry to me.

I dont' agree with the suggestion for an RfC. I think its an attempt to guillotine disucssion.

I would like to hear what other editors (like Chipmunkdavis and every one else) have to say. So far I think Taivo and myself have dominated the postings. The questions are:

Should Kosovo and Holy See really be bundled together?
Should permanent observers (i.e. Holy See) have its own category?
Should the list be amended so it does not incorrectly say that the Vatican City is a UN observer....its not, the Holy See is.

Other editors may have other questions. I will make a post about the topics at the UN, Kosovo pages, Holy See page and Diplomacy pages. Hopefully we will get more interest....So far there has been so little. NelsonSudan (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "personalized things", WP:POT. These issues have been discussed before, NelsonSudan, especially during the recent mediation. Just because you showed up a short time ago, doesn't mean that we haven't discussed this to death over the last several months. We clearly don't want to have another long discussion just to bring you up to speed. If you want to see what many other editors have to say, then read the mediation. It's time for a conclusion to this. --Taivo (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Orange Tuesday. I have been following the discussion, and this is going nowhere fast. This is a valid topic of discussion to bring up, one that was left unresolved and Alinor had been gathering more and more information for us on this. However it has been such a short amount of time since the last inclusion discussion that I highly doubt positions have changed and discussion would be a pointlessly lengthly endeavour. Outback the koala (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Nightw, if I may make a suggestion when wording the RfC vote, I would suggest that the criteria be as simply worded and verifiable as possible. My suggestion would be the current version, which is basically:

UN members
non-members who are members of UN-affiliated organizations
others

or a four-category version:

UN members
non-members who are members of UN-affiliated organizations, whose sovereignty is undisputed
non-members who are members of UN-affiliated organizations, whose sovereignty is disputed
others

If the question over the membership criteria of the two middle categories is any more complicated than that, we move into a world of problematic verifiability that can get confusing. Just a suggestion for the wording of the RfC poll. --Taivo (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think a much simpler way to distinguish the two middle categories would be: "non-members who participate as observers in the General Assembly" vs. "non-member non-observer states who are members of UN-affiliated organizations". The distinction in the UN column should be based on the UN. The dispute stuff is already covered by the disputes column. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this was the original proposal. Put it to a preference vote, get others to voice their opinion, vote, and call it a day. However, the main idea was to agree on a way to reduce the categories. If enough editors here want a four-cat split option in their also, I won't object, but I will insist on including the ideas previously put forward on a two-cat split. Those are:

UN member states
others

and

UN members and observer states
others

Sound okay? Nightw 01:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The first option is a viable alternative, but you can't "bundle" the UN members and observers into a single category. That's WP:SYN. The other option that needs to be included in the poll a single, undivided list with colours to distinguish the UN members. Please post a draft of the RfC here so that we can all review it before it goes live. TDL (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly can, how on earth is it synthesis? And no, I'm not going to include all the options we've already been through and rejected. There wasn't ever any substantial support for your single list idea and I doubt there is now either. We had a mediation (which you initiated) where the "single list" idea was rejected because it "is always strongly opposed whenever it's brought up" (your words, your emphasis). No, we're not going back to the start. Nightw 03:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

See below for an explanation of SYN.

"I'm not going to include all the options we've already been through and rejected." - You seem to have forgotten that your UN+VC vs everyone else option was also repeatedly rejected at the same mediation. If you want to reopen the discussion, then all the options need to come back on the table, not just the ones that you like. If there's no support for a single list then it will lose the poll, so you've got nothing to be concerned about right? TDL (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont see the above as addressing the central points:

Should Kosovo and Holy See really be bundled together?
Should permanent observers (i.e. Holy See) have its own category?
Should the list be amended so it does not incorrectly say that the Vatican City is a UN observer....its not, the Holy See is.

Lets have more discussion and talk things through. No guillotines please. Thanks. NelsonSudan (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

We're not "guillotining it". We've been talking about it for over a year. I implore you to wait for the RfC. You're not going to get the response you want this way. Nightw 03:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The first two points you give will be addressed by the RfC, as the categories will determine this. just a note on WP:SYN, grouping UN member and observers together is not SYN. SYN is when you take two sources saying different things and combine them to say something neither says. A list of UN members and observers isn't making sources say something they don't. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

So it seems that the RfC falls into four options based on what people have been saying so far

Two categories, divided at UN membership (VC goes in the "other" list)
Two categories, divided at UN membership plus "observer status" (VC goes in the "member-observer" list)--this is the old status quo before mediation
Three categories, divided into UN membership, non-membership but UN-affiliated organization membership, and non-members (VC and Kosovo in the middle group)--this is the current default sort
Four categories, dividing the middle group into "observer" and "non-observer" status (VC and Kosovo split into separate categories)

Have I summarized this correctly? --Taivo (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A note on polling mechanics. I doubt that any of these options receive a majority vote on the first try. I suggest that we poll, then delete the least popular and poll again with three options. Repeat with two options. This way we don't have to do deal with any of the "2 is my first choice, but I'd accept 3, but not 4" comments. After the first round or so, it also makes any (brief) discussion easier because we simply stop talking about the eliminated options. --Taivo (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Careful Taivo, we don't want to turn this into a debate about the best form of democracy! As a clarification, does this mean each user gets just one "support" vote in each round? I'd also suggest we agree that after this we don't discuss the issue for another 3 months. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That looks about right. I think perhaps a two-round system would be best since it would not weary our uninvolved participants (they might get sick of us by the last round and we mightn't get any votes at all). Would eliminating two in the first round and then having a run-off election for the two most popular be acceptable? Nightw 06:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

@Chipmunk and Night: It is synthesis to group UN members and observers together because you're sourcing two distinct facts (states which are UN members and states which are observer members) and putting forth the new idea that these two groups of states are equivalent by bundeling them together. Think of it this way: if the first category was "UN Member states and states which are recognized by the USA" or "UN Member states and states which start with the letter V" or "UN member states and states with yellow in their flag" would you not think that this was SYN? By grouping two distinct classes of states together you're advancing the position that these groups are equivalent with is OR without sources to back it up. TDL (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, I just don't think it exactly meets the criteria of SYN, any more than grouping the Vatican and Kosovo does. I'd oppose the other suggestions you mention, but I wouldn't call them SYN. As for sources, there are plenty that support grouping the 193 UN states+Vatican together (it would be 194 now I suppose, but paper atlases don't automatically update!), so I don't think sourcing it would be an issue. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That is not the definition of synthesis. Synthesis is taking facts from two separate sources to form a single claim about something. Grouping two criterion to create a category in this list does not classify as synthesis any more than does our inclusion criteria (a or b). Nightw 06:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmunkdavis and Nightw. This isn't synthesis. Indeed, if you want to get technical, then every time we turn our brains on and decide which of two references is a better one to use, we perform original research and every time we take two sources and make one sentence, we synthesize information. Taking Wikipedia policies to the extreme and turning off our brains is not the goal here. What we are doing on this page is not inappropriate synthesis. --Taivo (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, was away from civilisation for a few days. I'll post the RfC draft tomorrow, I know it's late. Just so everyone is aware, Nelson was blocked as a sock a couple of days ago so we won't be hearing from him anymore. Nightw 17:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of us suspected he was a sock, we just assumed a different puppet master. --Taivo (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Finally got the draft done today. It's at /Discussion of criteria. Nightw 11:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Libya

"Gaddafi regime remains officially recognized by the United Nations"

Is there a source for this? Because I don't think it's accurate. The Libyan Mission to the UN represents the NTC government. [25] Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That looks complicated. I didn't revert because I assumed it was true. The mission in New York is represented by Shalgham, who switched sides in March. He was officially replaced by Ali Treki, who has also apparently deserted. Libya also has UN missions in Geneva, Nairobi, Paris and Vienna. The AU is definitely sticking with Gaddafi for now, but Migiro, Ban Ki-moon's deputy, has asked for it to recognise the NTC.[26] According to the media, another guy, Abdel Elah al-Khatib seems to be some kind of special envoy who mediates between the two. Also, what do you think about using this flag instead? Nightw 13:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should use invented icons. I think the better strategy would be to have a lay-out which featured both flags equally, like on the current main article for Libya. Maybe something like:

Libya (disputed between two governments)

Libya
- Arabic: ليبيا → Lībyā
Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
- Arabic: الجماهيرية العربية الليبية الشعبية الاشتراكية العظمى → Al Jamāhīrīyah al ‘Arabīyah al Lībīyah ash Sha‘bīyah al Ishtirākīyah al ‘Uz̧má

As for the text in the box, maybe we could just adapt the lead section of the main Libya article? Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine, but we should use the name of the government (NTC) instead of just "Libya". Nightw 11:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. "Libya (National Transitional Council)" is what's being used on the NTC infobox on Libya right now.

Libya (disputed between two governments)

Libya (National Transitional Council)
- Arabic: ليبيا → Lībyā (المجلس الوطني الإنتقالي → al-Majlis al-Waṭanī al-Intiqālī)
Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
- Arabic: الجماهيرية العربية الليبية الشعبية الاشتراكية العظمى → Al Jamāhīrīyah al ‘Arabīyah al Lībīyah ash Sha‘bīyah al Ishtirākīyah al ‘Uz̧má

How's this? Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, although it may be worth listing Gadaffi first, similar to the Libya page. To respond to the UN point earlier, I read on some sources that the UN did not recognise the NTC (although there wasn't anything explicit about whether it still recognised Gadaffi) at the urgings of South Africa, who also led the AU not to recognise it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

NTC is first on the Libya page now that they're in control of the majority of the country, although personally I don't care about the order one way or another. Do you remember what the actual source was that you saw? I've been trying to find evidence of the UN "not recognizing" the rebels (or continuing to "recognize" Gadaffi) and I'm coming up blank. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not notice that change on the Libya page. Ah well, not worth fighting over, I doubt it'll matter soon anyway. I don't remember where I read it unfortunately, and can't find it now. Aljazeera says the South African UN delegation "said it did not support funds going directly to the Libyan rebel government" and that "Pretoria insisted that there be no mention to the NTC in the official request for the release of the funds", but also that a UN official stated that the NTC would be involved with the humanitarian money distribution. I suppose there hasn't been an official statement, but the UN does seem to be leading towards helping the rebels. No doubt their going to be all above politics and remain intensely neutral till the UNSC has unanimity. Anyway, since the Libya article has changed, I suppose that this page should follow that order. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

SADR

I was reverted by user:Chipmunkdavis: "Rv, Historical languages are included, and the UN at least (in a rather indecisive fashion) still lists it as a Spanish territory. Please discuss other changes on talk."

No the UN lists it as non-self governing territory;
Historical langugages? Check formerly colonized countries whose official language is diff: Almost all Arab League member states for example. We can extend the "historical languages" concept and list the Spanish and French name for the United states by your logic.
Check Legal status of Western Sahara: It lists 48 countries allegedly recognizing the SADR. The 80 other states listed are those who have diplomatic "Bureau de liaison" with the Polisario. It's obvious that such listed states as the United States or the United Kingdom do not recognize the SADR. Despite that the aforementioned article uses almost exclusively pro-Polisario sources or lack thereof.
Attending some "alleged meeting" at the Asian-African Conference doesn't have anything to do with the statehood of the SADR. We are not going to list every international meeting that the SADR or the Polisario attended.

Tachfin (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd actually support adding Spanish to the United States entry, since there's a common argument that it enjoys a greater official status than does English. And yes, it's historically important to the country.
I've checked the article and I see 84. Some have frozen or cancelled relations pending the referendum, but that doesn't impact on recognition.
I agree with the removal of the Asian-African reference. Nightw 17:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I would also support adding Spanish and French to the United States section as well. I'm actually surprised no one has, especially since there is no official language in the U.S. --Taivo (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

- Well reasoning by local-analogy (Maghreb, Africa) there is no reason to include Spanish (which has no status in SADR) and not do the same for other states.
- SADR itself claims recognition from 80 states listed here.Tachfin (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to win the issue with Spanish, Tachfin. We've discussed the issue multiple times before with other countries and the consensus has always been to include historical languages where someone has bothered to include them. It's not hurting anyone for Spanish to sit there. --Taivo (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I don't care anymore I'm happy with it as it is. I tend to avoid this area since I already have 3-4 Polisario activists constantly on my back. I started the discussion since I was immediately reverted as if I did some kind of vandalism, I wish the initial "reverter" was as quick to discussion as he was to revert. P.S: Can you link me to the discussion you mentioned? Tachfin (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Scroll back up the page and you will see them scattered here and there over the past two or three years. --Taivo (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about not being as quick to discuss as revert, but life decided against a fast response. Anyway, the UN does list it as a Spanish territory in its list, although this is just a formality. I too am surprised French and Spanish haven't been added considering the current language inclusion criteria. To be fair, the number of recognitions could be better clarified (and sourced), but simply changing the number and saying it is according to thisorthat without providing a source doesn't help. Have the recognition numbers been updated to include South Sudan by the way? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you link me to that U.N listing? It would be really weird if true.

Above I linked to the official SADR website, which claims 80 recognitions (Counted them by converting to table to excel). S.Sudan would be the 81st so still short of 84. The article should mention that it is according to their claim since the exact current number is difficult to determine; and it's only fair to suspect that they try to inflate it given the geopolitics. Tachfin (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Spain situation is just a leftover because they couldn't place it under any other country without taking a side, so no resolution has been published officially removing its sovereignty over the Western Sahara. Anyway, I've just looked at the current website and instead of an explicit naming of Spain they've got a footnote saying Spain has relinquished responsibility. Here's the June 2011 report on the territory, which is interesting. So at least the website can move with the times, even if the UN itself hasn't. Perhaps there is hope for the world yet.

Anyway, that's an interesting list of countries, and I'd agree they'd probably try to increase the number as much as they can without offending anyone (except Morocco of course). This conversation topic reminds me of the situation earlier this year: Abkhazia: "Vanuatu has recognised us" Vanuatu UN representative: "No we haven't." Anyway, let's see what Night W has to say. I'm happy to change the number if we reach an agreement here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed interesting document, thanks! Tachfin (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Puntland

why isn't Puntland included like Somaliland is? their situation is the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.251.167.67 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Puntland explicitly denies that it is independent, whereas Somaliland explicitly asserts it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Puntland and Galmudug claim to be federative divisions of somalia rather than independent states.XavierGreen (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Principality of Filettino

Should this be added in the list as an unrecognized country? Principality of Filettino 193.109.254.21 (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That article made me laugh. Only in Europe... The answer is no, unless you can produce credible sources to say that it has fulfilled the criteria. Nightw 13:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no better way to protest! Maybe they'll establish relations with Seborga. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Or the Principality of Sealand. It has a Facebook page with over 38,000 friends so doesn't that count as "international recognition"? --Taivo (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Night w likes this.

Aaahahahahahaaa, Night w, you are hilarious! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

Jamahiriya has effective control over some of Libya's territory
Jamahiriya claims to be the sole legitimate government of Libya
Most of the UN member states recognize Jamahiriya as the sole legitimate government of Libya

Which means that Jamahiriya is a state with limited recognition and must be included on the 3rd part of the list OR
RoC (Taiwan) must be excluded from the list and added as a special note to PRC as it's in absolutely same situation as Libya (similiar territorial claims, different names, different governments and different capitals) Captain armenia (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion, taken from the article:

Entities included either:

   * (a) have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory

or

   * (b) are recognized as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has not declared independence as a separate entity from Libya, which is already included on the list; and it is similarly not recognized by any other state as a sovereign state separate from Libya. On the other hand, you have a good point about Taiwan, as it also has not formally declared independence separate from China, and is recognized by 23 states not explicitly as an independent country, but generally as an alternative representative of China. However, Taiwan's situation is not as clear as that of the Jamahiriya, because its government has at many times pursued a policy of interpreting the state as independent despite the explicit text of the laws considering it to be the representative of China; additionally, it is widely considered to be a de facto independent state both by many international observers and by the majority of its own people, again despite the literal meaning of its laws. I think this deserves further discussion. Evzob (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There also have been instances in the past where a state has recognized both the ROC and PRC as being independent states, this has not been the case with libya.XavierGreen (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Palestine and UNESCO

Just a heads up to all the editors here: Palestine has applied to join UNESCO and the membership vote is at the end of October. If the bid is successful then Palestine will have to move from the current third category to the current second category. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The opposition of the US, Israel and other powers to this move makes the debate on whether Specialized Agency membership matters for sovereignty pointless. Ladril (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The US will never agree on this bid, Barrack Obama allready told the Palestine president he'll use hes veto against this bid. Dqfn13 (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Can the US veto UNESCO? I was under the impression some agencies have their own voting systems, but aren't familiar with the specifics. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, they can't. A simple majority is required, and there are no vetoes. Nightw 12:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The US is threatening to withhold funding though, and this was sufficient to stop Palestine's bid to join UNESCO and the WHO in 1989. We'll see. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Woops, didn't read as I should have... US will use veto against Palestinia becomming memberstate of NATO... if I'm not mistaken, again. :blushes: Dqfn13 (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, I think they're going with Iran's application instead. Nightw 15:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

lol, that's a good one! You're a regular stand up Night Outback the koala (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Gambia

The Gambia is not a francophone country.--Vivresanlim (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

And we have not listed it as one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

But you put the French name for it. Tachfin (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The French had a strong historic presence there, which is why French is listed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong historic presence is overstating it. They had like one or two forts? Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with removal of french from the entry. Outback the koala (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm generally for removing all historical names though, so I'd like to see what supporters think. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The reasons that I see are; French is not a major, minor, offical or national language. French historical ties are a very, very minor enclave (Albreda) which it gave up in 1857. See History of The Gambia. The country is exclusively english, thats why I support removal of the french entry. Outback the koala (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Language addition - Somalia

English is an offical language is parts of Somalia and is spoken there, particularly in Somaliland. Additionally Italian continues to be a minor, but significant lingua franca in Southern Somalia. I propose we add both languages for that entry. If no comments are made in 7 days, I'll make the addition. See Languages of Somalia for more info. Outback the koala (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"Islamic Emirate of Abyan"

What do we think about the alleged "Islamic Emirate" that has reportedly been declared by Islamist militants in the Yemeni governorate of Abyan? Is it an un-recognized state? It seems like a borderline case to me. The declaration seems to imply independence, though to my knowledge that has not been established 100% explicitly. And as for control of territory, the organization in question ("Ansar al-Sharia") is well established as being in control of at least two or three cities in the region. By some accounts, they have also set up a limited state apparatus within those areas. I'm not necessarily pushing for inclusion in the list, but what does everyone else think? Evzob (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with these borderline cases is that listing them will leave the door open for practically every armed separatist movement in the world. If we list them because we think they have a valid claim to statehood, then we will have to consider Mindanao or the parts of Myanmar held by separatist guerrillas, for example. This is why I think we need to stick to those entities that, according to reliable sources, have established themselves as fully-functioning states, at least in a de facto way (and yes, Palestine does fit the definition as well). Ladril (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Does this emirate even exist? Most of the results that are coming up for me on google don't exactly feel like reliable sources. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know this was still around. I'm doubtful that "rebel held" desert has changed much. Outback the koala (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of rebel held desert - militants are confirmed as being in control of the cities of Jaar, Shuqra, and the provincial capital of Zinjibar (though part of it has been retaken by the Yemeni government), as well as some other small towns. This is well supported by local and international press. As for state capacity, the militants' organization (calling itself "Ansar al-Sharia") has reportedly at least made a show of cracking down on petty crime, though it's hard to say how far it goes beyond that. Evzob (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This source says al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has captured Zinjibar [27] Outback the koala (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the line is blurry between AQAP and the relatively newly declared "Ansar al-Sharia". Either way though, someone violent and Islamist is in charge of Zinjibar, Jaar, and by most recent accounts Shaqra at the very least. However, I'm leaning toward's Ladril's opinion that the "declared independence" criterion has not been met. Evzob (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree unless a source comes up that shows us a declared independence. Outback the koala (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources for rebel control of the territory are many - try a Google News search for "Zinjibar". The declaration of the Islamic emirate, on the other hand, is fuzzier. No details seem to have emerged in the English-language media. Evzob (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ladril, I see your point and I think I agree. Although I think this is a clearer than average case of an insurgent group actually controlling territory, it's probably best not to include such borderline cases until/unless they become better established. Evzob (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Islamic militants for the most part have little regard for international law, being mostly adhered to their own interpretations of Islamic law. This is a reason why it is difficult to assert whether the control they have achieved over certain regions - such as Waziristan - is indeed with the intention of promulgating states as separate subjects of international law. Ladril (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Declaring an Islamic emirate may not be intended to imply a de jure "sovereign state" in the sense of the nation-state system, the latter of which is typically what we mean by "declare independence". Evzob (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The lack of academic texts on the subject - or my incompetence in finding them - makes it difficult to reach a definitive conclusion. I don't think a note in the Yemen entry, stating part of its territory is controlled by an Islamic group that has declared the Emirate of Abyan, would be out of the question, though. Ladril (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorting

How exactly does it work? When I sort by sovereignty, clicking twice to get disputed at the top, I get the Vatican redirect before anything else. Surely we can make the redirects all bunch somewhere like the section headers do? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sort criteria change

The discussion on the criteria subpage was closed yesterday. Presuming everybody is okay with it being closed, does everyone accept that we have a consensus for change? Nightw 06:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I know this was not part of the criteria, but what about Niue and Cook Islands, we have been going on back and forth, maybe another category would be "De facto Independent states" like independent, but dependent on other countries through association or where the country is responsible for another country. --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 20:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope, nope, afraid we shouldn't talk about this right now. Deal with it later. Sorry Spesh, this issue caused the over-a-year of debate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I am having a hard time figuring out what the consensus came down to. But the Niue, CI should be brought up. --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 23:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree now is the time. Too much attention was afforded to a single user for a long time. Ladril (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus for change. Get after it.MilkStraw532 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Spesh, the consensus was for two categories, and only two categories--1) UN members and observers, 2) others. --Taivo (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 03:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why does this get brought up every time someone makes even a passing mention to the sorting method in this article? How are the two even remotely related? Whatever. I've made the change. Nightw 12:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Very bad change, a UN member state is different to a UN observer state and the two things should not have been mixed together in such a way. The initial vote a couple of months ago was against such a change, i see people just carried on the debate and managed to get a change. This method is going to be extremely controversial if Palestine gets granted observer state status. The methods used before were far better than this fudge. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There was also no consensus I can remember for changing the colouring scheme for the sorting column. Night's own preview left the colouring scheme intact. Ladril (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding Information

We have information on how many first level subdivisions there are for federations, why not have it for unitary states? I have made those edits, not completely, and they have been reverted. I know now I acted to early on it, and I was wondering if we have an agreenment to do so? I also added territories of France in list form like the United Kingdom is, and that was reverted. --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 19:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

By definition internal divisions of a unitary state exist purely at the whim that state. By contrast, the internal divisions of a federation have individual existence and the federation exists because they say it does. These are completely different situations and the different treatment of them on this page is entirely sensible. --Khajidha (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but if we were to say it is a unitary country, wouldn't it show those countries are different? --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 05:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Palestine is not yet member of UNESCO

According to UNESCO statment Palestine is not a member state yet: “For its membership to take effect*, Palestine must sign and ratify UNESCO’s Constitution which is open for signature in the archives of the Government of the United Kingdom in London.” 16:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Palestine

It's now somehow like Kosovo, the Cook Islands and Niue. It's having state membership (as opposed to observer status, non-state membership or associate membership) in the UNESCO. 119.237.249.129 (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If Palestine gets UN observer status, it will make this list of sovereign states a complete joke, by including an entity that is not sovereign and does not control a territory and putting it along side actual sovereign states, because of a political vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This one? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yea, that one. This list had been a joke since it was created. 119.237.249.129 (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Just what, exactly, is an "actual sovereign state"? I could name quite a few UN members that lack at least one criterion usually thought of as part of sovereignty. --Khajidha (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no single definition that applies to all cases. The understanding of what a sovereign state is varies across contexts and cultures. This is why, for example, Liechtenstein can be considered sovereign, even though Switzerland has power to enact legislation for it. Monaco was considered sovereign even though France retained considerable power over it, etc. Ladril (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Previous archieves have argued that Scotland , NI and Wales are countries and have been rebuffed , yet they are definitly more soveriegn than Palestine , they have recognised seperate legal systems and law enforcement, recognised devovled or assembly governments and have clearly defined borders their own languages and YET they fail to be included and Palestine who has no recognised government , law enforcement , legeal system or borders is show how ? Because the UN are stating its a seperate country even though Isreal control every thing about it ? What about the Iroquois nation ?Murry1975 (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The important part of sovereignty here is the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not claim that right. Native American nations only conduct relations with their "host country" (US, Canada, Mexico). Palestine claims the right to conduct international relations with other countries. --Khajidha (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Plus they're legally under the UK government. Autonomy is not sovereignty, and the two should not be confused. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes to enter relations with other states , Iroquois have issued there own passports , Scotland , Wales and NI have international agencies that operate without the control of the UK government , so by your examples they too meet them . Its just odd .Just saying it seems the . They maybe legally under the UK government but Palestine is "legally" part of the modern state of Isreal and Isreal do not recognise any type of Palestinian self government or automony , so it is a step down from Scotland , NI and Wales .Murry1975 (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The legality of Israel over the Palestinian territories is not so clear cut. Even the current government doesn't claim it is all part of Israel. Israel recognises the PNA as a government of a future Palestinian state. Scotland, Wales, NI don't have agencies conducting diplomatic operations. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sovereignty means, simply put, that no other entity has power over you. From what I understand, the constituent parts of the United Kingdom are not sovereign; their powers are devolved to them by the state called the United Kingdom. They do not have the prerogatives of states in the world system. Ladril (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As for Palestine, the single fact that it is recognized as a state by another state means it is a subject of international law and thus eligible to be on the list. It is an international person. Ladril (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"Israel recognises the PNA as a government of a future Palestinian state" FUTURE .Once again your points for are just as much against . "Sovereignty means, simply put, that no other entity has power over you" Isreal DOES have power over Palestine .Murry1975 (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Israel's power over Palestine isn't legally recognised, and Israel treats the PNA as the current government of the Palestinian-territories-which-are-not-yet-a-state-which-we-must-build-settlements-on. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"Isreal DOES have power over Palestine" But unlike Wales, Scotland, etc., Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by many governments in the world. That's enough to make it a subject of international law. In practice, it's posible to be occupied by another state and still be regarded as de jure sovereign. Ladril (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I would also point out that Palestine does have a degree of de facto sovereignty over some of its territory. The regions falling under "Area A" based on the Oslo Accords now include the vast majority of urban areas with Palestinian majorities. In these areas, sovereignty falls to the PNA, with no Israeli control whatsoever on the ground. Israel only controls the airspace, and the territorial waters in the case of Gaza. Sure, Israel has made frequent incursions into Area A, but sovereign states do that to other sovereign states all the time. Evzob (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Palestine is under Israeli occupation, but you can be occupied and remain a state at the same time. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Territorial disputes

I recently reverted the addition of the border dispute over Hans Island as a non-notable dispute. After that a border dispute in the dollart was added, and I couldn't justify a reversion without falling down a slippery slope. We've currently included the maritime border dispute of Colombia and Nicaragua (which is misrepresented and only on one entry). We also have the Kuril Islands and Dokdo (although Dokdo again only on one extent, and should really be called Liancourt rocks). Strangely we have "Syria disputed[clarification needed] the Turkish sovereignty over Hatay Province", although the dispute seems current. I think we need at least a baseline for which ones are presented. I think as a minimum the dispute should fulfill one of two criteria to be included

The dispute is multilateral
The dispute is over territory with a permanent settlement

This would also mean a couple of disputes over minor US outlying territories and minor French atolls would go. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry for reverting you before looking at the talk.) Why does it need a permanent settlement? The question about disputed territory has always been, where does the border lay? For Hans Island it is a question about the right to perform military exercises, amongst other things. Also, isn't the fact that we are disputing this, make it a dispute? 117Avenue (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Some limit is needed because we don't want this article turning into List of territorial disputes. While yes, there is a dispute, whether it should belong on a page where many countries don't even have a description is the more important consideration. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There's an article for that? Cool. 117Avenue (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I might suggest that this list shouldn't include territorial disputes at all, except maybe if they involve the entire territory of the country. Though I wouldn't fight for this outcome if a lot of people were against it. Evzob (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say Evzob is on the right track here. Obviously territorial disputes such as those over Kosovo or Taiwan would be mentioned here as those deal with whether the state in question even exists. Beyond that everything else is mere detail, to be covered on the List of territorial disputes page. --Khajidha (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of the more notable incidents, such as the Spratlys or Kashmir? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a list of sovereign states. Is anyone saying that the Spratlys or Kashmir are/should be their own states? If not, they would not change the list of states. Some states would have different extents depending on how these disputes are settled, but no new states would be created. Therefore, those disputes are not relevant to this list. --Khajidha (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone saying that Kashmir should be its own state? Yes. It's the official position of Pakistan. Nightw 14:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree in principle with Khajidha. The extents of the states are not the topic of this list. Even a case such as Kashmir in which someone is saying it should be its own state is not really relevant here. Lots of countries probably wish the arrangement of states in the world was was different than it is; and Pakistan doesn't actually recognize Kashmir as a sovereign state. Evzob (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added the dispute in the Dollart because it's a dispute of over 200 years of age, if I'm not mistaken, and it's currently a big isue because Germany want's to bild a huge windmill park in the Waddensea right at the disputed location. But if this list is going to change, like what Evzob suggested I don't mind taking it off. Maybe a new List of border disputes is a nice idea? Dqfn13 (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Age doesn't make a dispute particularly important, and I doubt an inter-EU dispute will be any real problem. As border disputes are about territory, that would just duplicate List of territorial disputes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Chip, we need to limit this somehow; and your minimums are a good starting point for discussion. There are a good number of significant disputes that are simply two states involved, and are significant.. So it's hard to say. Do we then note the claims of the Other 10 as well. The claims of the ROC, for example, would be crazy for us to include (They claim all of Mongolia and parts of up to 11 other states) to note all would be painful, I just raise this issue, I can't think of a solution yet. Outback the koala (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think if the claim isn't being actively pursued, then it shouldn't go in. A recent history of armed struggle, litigation or at least some strong rhetoric from noteworthy politicians should be considered before including a dispute. Nightw 05:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is not up to us to judge what is a minor dispute or not. In 2002, Spain launched a full military operation just to control a 100m uninhabited rock in the sea, you'd think it doesn't matter but for the claimants it is a big deal. There are active disputes and dormant disputes but the proposed criteria (i.e. Minor vs Major) depends on POV (someone said intra-EU disputes do not matter, well check out Gibraltar). It's best to just drop all the disputes that do not concern a country's existence as a whole, the other complicated cases can go to List of territorial disputes as they don't add much value here. Tachfin (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the proposed criteria doesn't mention major or minor. As for Gibraltar, for Spain to enter into the EU (or EC as it was) it had to fully reopen the border with Gibraltar, and since then its been nothing but diplomatic discussion. So yes, thank you for an example of where the EU took the sting out of a territorial dispute. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Chip, a border being open or close doesn't affect the disputed status of a territory. You proposed a "minimum criteria of inclusion", justifying that there are "non-notable disputes" so yes, your rationale boils down to "a dispute has to be important/major as opposed to unimportant/minor". By definition all disputes are important to those concerned, a criteria based on a dormant/active status of a dispute would make more sens, since we cannot define what's a "non-notable dispute" that would be very subjective.

I don't understand the first condition "1) The dispute is multilateral", what does that mean? more than two claimants? "2) The dispute is over territory with a permanent settlement", I gave you an example of an uninhabited territory (Perejil Island) that almost sparked a war between two countries a few years back. So no, "important disputes" can be over uninhabited and rather insignificant territories. Tachfin (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said the border affected the "disputed status", it just shows how relevant the dispute it. My argument may boil down to important vs unimportant, but I have quantified these rather than leaving them as purely qualitative criteria. A multilateral dispute involves more than two countries. I know about Perejil Island (a war? There wasn't even any fighting), and of course there will be grey areas etc etc. The point of these criteria would be to draw a line in the ground, so to speak, to eliminate as much grey as possible. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I said "almost sparked a war", not that it actually happened. The proposed criteria has shortcomings and is subjective so it will not solve the "greyness".
As at least 2 other users proposed, it would be best to just drop the disputes that do not question a country's existence; a good way to avoid listing all the disputes that might be seen by some as unimportant although a criteria based on active/dormant status of a dispute might also achieve this goal (CIA's World Factbook adopts this logic).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachfin (talk • contribs)

I agree it's complicated, but where a dispute impacts on a state's sovereignty it's no less relevant than all that information on Commonwealth realms and foreign involvement. Some of the dependencies we list, like British Indian Ocean Territory, are also disputed by some states. Nightw 19:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe there would have been a war, it would be stupid of Morocco to attack a NATO state. If you could list the shortcoming of the criteria that would help. Note that seemingly everything we do on this page is subjective, we just have to pick what we agree serves us best. Any clear guideline helps solve greyness. While we have agreements on head of state inclusion, bullet point usage, and flags, we don't have one for territorial disputes. Do you have a better criteria, or a better starting point? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever we come up with, I think Outback's mention of the Republic of China's standing disputes with neighbors of Mainland China (see pretty picture above) are a good example of the least notable kind of dispute - ones that only exist in outdated laws that are still "on the books", and are not part of the actual policy of the state's government (note though that this is not the case with the territories actually under the control of the Republic of China, which are hotly contested with the People's Republic of China and in some cases with other countries). Evzob (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Territorial disputes are not relevant to this article unless they impact the existence of the sovereignty of the state. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Agreed with Evzob, Khajidha, Tachfin, Schmucky, et. al. The focus of this list isn't the territorial extent of sovereign states, it's on the existence of sovereign states. All non-existential territorial disputes should be relegated to List of territorial disputes where the issue can be dealt with properly. TDL (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, since 117Avenue added the list of territorial disputes to see also, not much information lost. So does everyone agree to remove information about territorial claims and disputes from any extent in which the sovereignty dispute column has a "none"? (This includes everything from maritime boundaries to disputes over dependencies to antarctic claims) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

But the Antactic territories and disputed dependencies would remain in the bullet lists of dependencies right? And the statement above by evzob stating "Pakistan doesn't actually recognize Kashmir as a sovereign state" is technically incorrect. One of the three branches of Pakistans government (the judiciary) does actually recognize Azad Kashmir as an independent state, the other two branches have ambiguous or no position on the matter.XavierGreen (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Dependencies would remain in bullets, although the notes of disputed sovereignty over them would be taken out. Australia, Britain, New Zealand and Norway would retain their bulleted antarctic territories, however Argentina and Chile would lose that information as they do not claim them as territories but integral parts. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems a bit over-the-top to remove the information on Antarctica. I think now would be a good time to discuss what kinds of information we do want in that column, because in my mind it should contain some basic information describing the item being listed. Nightw 11:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Can we agree in the meantime to take out anything not meeting the two minimums I have given above? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No objections here. Nightw 12:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No objections, as the dispute I've added is on the list as well. Dqfn13 (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need for dependencies to be on this list at all. This is a list of sovereign states, not a list of dependent territories. --Khajidha (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree to remove all territorial disputes that do not impact the existence of a state. Re dependent territories, if the country has recognized sovereignty over them then they must be included (regardless if X claims them). If it doesn't then it shouldn't be included, this is the case of the French and British territories in Antarctica which they have no sovereignty over, only claims. The proposal to delete dependent territories is also fine as it simplifies the list, We can instead put in the last column Country X has a number of [[Dependent territories of X|Dependent territories]] Tachfin (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If a british citizen murders someone in the antarctic territory they are tried under British Antarctic territory law. The UK does exersise soveriegnty over the portions of its antarctic territory it directly occupies such as Halley and Rothera. France's claims in the antarctic are administered as a district of the French Southtern and Antarctic Territories. I think every non-integral territory and polities over whos parent soveriegnty are limited by international treaty (Svalbard, Hong Kong, ect) should remain bulleted regardless of the claims made over them. Most states do not have official published positions favoring one side or another over the soveriegnty of minor territories such as wake island and the British Indian Ocean territory. So determining which countries have majority recognition to the soveriegnty of a minor polity is a near impossible task.XavierGreen (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should these non-sovereign dependencies be listed on this page (a list of sovereign states)? Why not simply have a link such as Tachfin suggested along with a "Territorial disputes of X" link where appropriate? --Khajidha (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the reason for the extent column. It was added to provide details on a state's sovereignty. Dependencies are not legally part of any sovereign state, they're extensions of a state's sovereignty readers will expect them to see them in any "list of countries". Nightw 03:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

People expect to see non-sovereign areas in a list of sovereign states? That makes no sense. The fact that they are part of a state's sovereignty has no bearing on the fact that they, themselves, are not sovereign. I understand that they belong on a list of "countries", but this list is specified to be of sovereign states. From the intro: "This is a list of sovereign states giving an overview of states around the world with information on the status and recognition of their sovereignty." Exactly what part of that covers the inclusion of non-sovereign areas? --Khajidha (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Point 3 of "information on the status of their sovereignty". Feel free to propose their removal (but do it in a separate thread as this is about territorial disputes). Nightw 12:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I think by "sovereignty" here you mean "control"? According to the POV of each state concerned, they have sovereignty over those parts of Antarctica that they claim. But they all also recognise the Antarctic Treaty and do not exercise de facto control over anyone outside their own bases and their own personnel.

Note also that Australia, France, New Zealand, Norway and the UK have all recognised one another's claims in Antarctica (see this section for reference), so it's not just a matter of asserting a claim that's not otherwise recognised. Pfainuk talk 18:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No Objections to Chip right now. Outback the koala (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC):

I've gone and removed the ones which indisputably fail the criteria I set above, and did this with a very liberal interpretation of territories passing the criteria. I also added a source. This in no way should be taken as an end on this discussion to remove more or all of them. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

On those U.S. territories, there was a discussion at Talk:List of sovereign states in the 2000s about it before. Nightw 04:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What a read. I adjusted the text to be closer to the factbook description on the disputes page I cited (because I cited it), which is "the US assert various claims to Bajo Nuevo and Serranilla Bank." As in the 2000s conversation, under the Colombia entry but curiously absent from the US entry. If I was to OR I'd guess that the other territories are all effectively under US control as there isn't any serious dispute over them (Haiti can't do much about Navassa, and Tokelau obviously hasn't got much international pull), whereas Colombia is a US ally (not only the only South American country to not recognise Palestine, but also abstaining in UNSC vote) and exerts as much administrative power as the US does over the islands (coast guard etc.).

C'est la vie. Change the text back if you think it was better, but if we do take it off source wording an explanatory note would be useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh, it's not a big deal really. Although you should look over the wording once more as I think you've left a word out. Nightw 13:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So I did, shamefully. Any further ideas on territorial disputes? We seem to have issues over Antarctica (Argentina/Chile), Kashmir, and what to do with Taiwan. To remind everyone, the current criteria for inclusion is "any major territorial disputes," which at least we have a minimum quantifiable criteria for. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no consensus for the criteria proposed (I might be mistaken).
The criteria was designed from a single point of view; that a dispute between Germany and the Netherlands does not merit inclusion. The permanently settled condition was added to get rid of this dispute. The other "Multilateral" condition was added to keep Antarctica since it is not permanently settled. Both of the proposed criteria are totally irrelevant to the "Major/Minor" status of a dispute. I believe we should either list all of them or remove all of them, there is no hurry to start removing some disputes before the discussion runs its course. The Antarctica issue can be dealt with separately since it is a unique exceptional case.
P.S: I've put back Plazas de soberanía, I don't understand why removed it since it meets your own criteria (Permanently settled) Tachfin (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that was not my reasoning. I first reverted Hans Island, which was before Dollart. I didn't think Dollart belonged not because of? the countries disputing it, but because it's a line in the water, and if we included all line in water disputes we'd have a glut of disputes. The multilateral condition I added with the spratly's in mind rather than Antarctica. The spratlys are the site of skirmishes every year as each of the multiple claimants tries to defend what they hold or show off their control. Antarctica is by the way, since the claims don't really matter anyway. What do you consider relevant to a "Major/minor status"? (Also, what permanent settlement is there in the plaza? There's just a couple of military outposts.) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think Hans Island is very active and major enough for inclusion. I think more discussion is needed. Outback the koala (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Could we at least agree to leave out maritime disputes from the list when they don't involve any land - especially if involving only EEZs and continental shelves (these are not supposed to be "territory" per se under UNCLOS anyway)? Or do we have any of those on here anyway? Evzob (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

@Evzob: I've already removed the maritime disputes as far as I can tell.

@Outback the koala: Why? (Serious question, not redundant. I wish to hear the reasons.) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It has had such a high profile in Canada, especially after the highly charged events of 2005 on the island, the number of media reports on this island is quite large. It is still key in Canada's foreign policy especially with regard to "Northern Sovereignty". This biggest thing I can think of is how widely known this little island is, in almost every part of the country (the government funded Canadian Broadcasting Corperation produced near-daily reports on the events and this was picked up by most domestic media). The defense minister flew and landed there with military personal and put up a flag. The Danes protested and dispatched warships to the area. There was an escallation. Because of the high tensions, immediate talks were held at high levels in late 2005, I believe in september or so, but as far as I know they were inconclusive. It later became a platform issue for the Conservative (CPC) govt in their reelection, to protect arctic sovereignty. In the part of Ontario where I live, there was a boycott of Danish goods. But my local stores began selling the stuff again after a year or two.

In other articles we look to the media to determine what is notable, as well as notability or knowledge of the item/event/issue in society. I think this is the case here. I think that the Plazas de soberanía is similar in this respect; a minor claim, fairly insignificant, but which generated a fair amount of press coverage around the issue (The plazas for the Morrocan incursion and the military situation the insued). Our focus should also be on what meets notablilty guidelines. Just because a dispute is minor does not mean that it is not notable. Conversly, A claim could be huge (ROC's claims above) yet not really be notable at all. Thoughts? Outback the koala (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I do note the plazas caused a lot of hoohah, and if the same occured with Hans, then it would be fairly notable. The problem is that based on this we'd have to individually discuss each addition or removal, which could sap a lot of time on this timesapping talkpage. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It might be helpful to note that some of the islands in Spanish North Africa did hold civilian populations until the early 20th century. So the islands are not uninhabitable, just merely uninhabited. I do agree that maritime claims without any land should be kept out of the page regardless of their size, otherwise we would be including huge numbers of obscure claims over tiny slivers of ocean.XavierGreen (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the purely maritime disputes have already been removed. Sorry I didn't take the time to check that out more thoroughly before I brought it up. Evzob (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that maritime disputes should be dropped (They already are apparently). I propose two alternatives for inclusion:

Keeping the active disputes and dropping the inactive ones (The CIA World FactBook is a good start to sort out active/Inactive)
Remove all disputes (that aren't sovereignty disputes), as they are not of absolute central importance to this article.

The number 2 is problematic because of disputed dependent territories, if we choose to keep them listed here we can point out to the states that claims them as giving one side of the story would be POV. But then again there is List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent, we would not be losing much if we just not listed them.

P.S: The "Plazas de Sobreina" are all inhabited, the dispute that you referred to (Perejil Island) is about an uninhabited rock that is not part of the "Plazas de Sobreina" and not part of Ceuta. So as the article currently stands this dispute is not listed. Tachfin (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not POV to give an accurate statement of who controls certain dependent territories. Also, number 1 would supposedly add back the maritime disputes and every current dispute there is, which would be unacceptable. Also, none of the plazas have settlements, yes I know Perejil is not officially part of plazas and Ceuta. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Outside of the Autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla, Spanish North Africa is not organized politically rather it is administered by Spain directly without any organized government. Thus under Spanish law Perejil has the same status as the rest of the remaining minor pieces of Spanish North Africa, there is no political entity offically called plazas de soberanía at all.XavierGreen (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression the Plazas were an informal grouping for the islands that aren't organised but Spain has proper control of. 01:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Spain, the "Plazas" are Spanish territory (which BTW is recognized by Morocco). Perejil is not one of those, the whole 2002 dispute stems from the fact that it is not part of the Plazas and neither part of Ceuta. Some have attempted to claim either of those versions as to legitimize the Spanish military operation, but in fact it is not and has never been mentioned anywhere until 2002. But let's not sidetrack the discussion.

@Chip, 1) should come with "no maritime disputes". What I find POV is to list the Antarctic territories for countries who consider them dependent and not do the same for Argentina, Chile etc..Whereas the whole continent is disputed and claims overlap each other. Also, "Plazas" are inhabited by humans; it is irrelevant if they are military or civilian, though I'm sure there are some civilians there (fishers). In any case, the "dispute" is over all of the Spanish enclaves in northern Morocco, it would be absurd to separate Ceuta and Mellila from the rest. Tachfin (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring these unsourced assertions on the definition of Plazas, if we list Dependent territories it's not POV to not list dependent territories... besides, the Chilean and Antarctican could be argued as in by my mention of multilateral, as you stated. I didn't mention inhabitants (which by definition must be long term so temporary military postings and fishing boats fail that) but settlements, which again it fails. It's not absurd to separate the claim over two cities from a couple of oceanic rocks. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with your criteria but the military posts there are permanent and long term. The dispute concerns all of these territories, why separate them on irrelevant geographic/demographic traits? Are we to say that China claims only the settled parts of Taiwan? Come on that is absurd. Tachfin (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I know you don't agree, I'm just pointing out the flaws you give it aren't actually flaws. A building is not a settlement, and inhabitants don't live there long. The plazas are as settled as the International Space Station. As for why to separate disputes based on demographics, that's because disputes with people involved are generally far more important in the real world than those without. No-one is saying or has said China only claims settled parts of Taiwan. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There is one dispute which concerns the Spanish possessions in northern Morocco, separating some of these territories because you believe they don't have a population is the same as separating some parts of a disputed territory (e.g. Taiwan) on the same basis. Disputes always involve people, you think Spain and Morocco are uninhabited? Besides, the Spanish didn't take over deserted places, almost all were forts (e.g. Badis). Tachfin (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

All of this illustrates my point that NONE of this belongs on this list. There is a sovereign state known as Spain, it belongs on this list; there is a sovereign state called Morocco, it belongs on this list. There is a dispute over some bits of land between the two, that does not belong on this list. The most that should be on this list is a link to pages for "Territorial disputes of Spain" and "Territorial disputes of Morocco". Dependencies, as they are not sovereign in and of themselves, do not belong on this page. Disputed territories not claiming their own sovereignty do not belong on this page. This is the list of sovereign states page, why everyone wants to put all of this extraneous detail here is beyond me. --Khajidha (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Tachfin (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I sympathise with the removal of territorial disputes, but I think information on dependencies is useful for showing how their sovereignty can reach beyond the state. Disputes can often be divided, Gibraltar has two official disputes, many disputes, especially over islands, have some settled while the rest isn't. In the Morocco/Spain case, Spain treats differently its autonomous cities and its plazas. At any rate, you'll have to convince Outback and others. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care either way, but the recognition of dependencies and the thing about Antarctica should stay. Nightw 22:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes if an entire polity is claimed by a state than in the eyes of that state the polities current form of administration does not exist. For example in the eyes of the Haitian government there is no such polity as the Territory of Navassa Island. So the claim over navassa island would have to stay because it threatens the legitimacy of the entire territory. Partial claims over territory should be removed since they dont threaten the existance of the polity claimed in part.XavierGreen (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

But Navassa Island does not have a sovereignty of its own, it is under US sovereignty. Even if it were transfered to Haiti, it would still not have a sovereignty of its own, it would be under Haitian sovereignty. Whether it is part of the US, Haiti or simply an empty rock makes no difference in the number of sovereign states so it should not be listed here even though it is disputed in toto. --Khajidha (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah but it is not part of the united states, it is a possesion of the united states. It has a seperate soveriegnty from the united states, but that soveriegnty is in the possesion of the USA since it is a dependent territory. In order for a polity to become a part of the United States proper it must be incorporated. Unincorporated territories such as Navassa are not considered to be part of the United States, merely posessions of it.XavierGreen (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What if we include mentions of dependent territories as well as any disputes that involve the entire territory of either the sovereign state OR any one of the dependent territories ("existential" disputes, including those pertaining to dependent territories)? That seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Do we have objections to that too? Evzob (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That is acceptable to me. And im sure it would be to the vast majority of editors here.XavierGreen (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Name of Morocco

The short name of Morocco in Arabic appears on the left of its full name whereas it should appear in the right, because of the direction of the Arabic script (see other country names in Arabic. I have unsuccessfully tried to fix this. could someone do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ybgursey (talk • contribs) 08:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to let Tachfin answer this, because he made the change on that entry. He raised the point that the transliteration should correspond to how it's written in English next to it (i.e., short form name → long form name). We originally had it the other way around for the reason the OP gives. I'm not really sure which is the best way. To my mind, it'll make more sense to a reader who can't read Arabic to have it as: "دولة قطر - قطر → Qaţar – Dawlat Qaţar", but for those who can read Arabic it'll look wrong, and perhaps a little unacademic even to those with a basic knowledge. Whatever method we use, we definitely need consistency on this. Nightw 10:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the reading order of the language is really relevant here. The names are listed to parallel their English versions and should be in the same order to make that parallel clear. --Khajidha (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Khadjidha. English readers will read from left to right, so the short/long names should be in the same order. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that's what I have done, switching made it correspond with English (i.e. short -> long form) and I think this was the intention of the person who originally made the list, since, if you look at the code, the short form comes first but because Arabic has a right-to-left logic it displays the other way (i.e. long form->short form). The way it currently is, a non-reader of Arabic would think that the transliteration of the long form is that of the short form. --Tachfin (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok according to Night w, it was the other way originally...Reading in English you'd expect to see to short form to come first, regardless if that language is read right-to-left. --Tachfin (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Does anyone have some spare time to swap them all around? Nightw 04:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess I can try and fix it.--Spesh531, My talk, and External links 20:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Nightw 13:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Dependent Territory missing from the list

It appears there is a french territory on Saint Helena. Two minor pieces of land were actually ceded to france in 1858 by treaty with the UK. A third french property is owned by france but does not seemed to have been ceded (thus not french territory). A source providing some details on its aquisition by france can be found here [[28]].XavierGreen (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is. They have some extraterritorial possessions, but no sovereignty. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The various sources i have seen specifically mention that Longwood House and Napoleans tomb were Ceded to france in exchange for 7000 pounds. World Statesmen lists it as being ceded to france in 1858, [[29]]. The treaty itself should be of some use in the manner though i cant seem to find it at the moment. It appears that two of the three areas were actually ceded to france, while the third doesnt even have extraterritoriallity and is merely owned by the french government.XavierGreen (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

similar to the vimy situation between France and Canada? Outback the koala (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I havent seen the vimy treaty, but from what i am reading now it appears that the canada was only granted use of the land (as opposed to being ceded the land), in the saint helena situation the territory was actually ceded to france. The French wikipedia page for the french possesions in saint helena states that it is a territory of france.XavierGreen (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This is extraterritoriality only, not a posession. --maxval (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir inclusion

I think Azad Kashmir doesnt belong here, as it doesnt consider itself sovereign. --maxval (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like first to see reliable sources that make it clear that Pakistan actively recognises Azad Kashmir as a sovereign state in the sense that we are using the term (i.e. dealing with independent states). I am also willing to consider changes to the inclusion criteria if this can remove the ambiguity between sovereign states in the sense of Louisiana and sovereign states in the sense of France, and to lay down a clearer standard of evidence required to confirm recognition of sovereignty, provided that such changes meet the requirements of WP:LSC. Pfainuk talk 12:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Current inclusion criteria are:
“(a) have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory
or
(b) are recognized as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state”
In the criterion (a) we have: “...are often regarded...” – and “often” is not “always”, so according to our criteria all separatist movement that declared independence can be listed as states. Azad Kashmir meets these criteria, and Waziristan, and Tamil Eelam, and Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, and so on... Aotearoa (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- The government of Azad Kashmir is not a serperatist movement. It was a defacto independent state that declared itself independent in 1947. It is not a part of Pakistan, yet its foreign affairs and defense are administered by Pakistan. The pakistani government considers it to be an independent and soveriegn state. No other state acknowledges it as such. If we are to list Niue as a soveriegn state via recognition than so must Azad Kashmir be listed.XavierGreen (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, ok the website is "www.ajk.gov.pk" basically standing for "World Wide Web (dot) Azad Jammu and Kashmir (dot) government (dot) PAKISTAN", part of Pakistan. That is its official website. So it is part of Pakistan. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 00:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC) And I am pretty sure a source is needed. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 00:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

All the website means is that it is registered on a .pk domain. I have provided sources about that state that Pakistans offical position is that Azad Kashmir is an independent state including [[30]], [[31]], [[32]].XavierGreen (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You say, "If we are to list Niue as a soveriegn state via recognition than so must Azad Kashmir be listed." Why do you not feel that the individual case should not be considered on its merits? As I noted above, we're even treating the Cook Islands and Niue separately on their merits (and indeed we may well end up in a position where one is included but the other isn't). Trying to get Azad Kashmir in based on the merits of Niue is absurd.

Going on to the merits of the Azad Kashmir case, I shall start by pointing out that your second and third sources there are identical. I note that those sources are not as good as the ones we have for Niue. In Niue's case we have evidence of formal diplomatic recognition. None of those sources refer to recognition. A key plank of your argument from that source appears to be the statement of the Attorney General of Pakistan, but the same source puts that down "largely to bureaucratic incompetence". The source also notes the "ambiguities in [Pakistan's] position on the constitutional status of Kashmir". In this way, the two sources actually contradict one another as to Pakistan's position on the matter.

I finally repeat a point that I believe I have made several times before. Nobody is arguing that the current inclusion criteria are perfect. Nobody has said that they cannot be changed. If you feel that the current criteria are wrong, then I strongly suggest that you propose criteria that you feel would be more appropriate. I only ask that when doing this, you consider WP:LSC's requirement that inclusion criteria be "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources". Pfainuk talk 18:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If Pakistan considers Azad Kashmir to be independent, than that is recognizing it as independent. The Cook Islands, Niue, and Azad Kashmir cases are all linked because each polity has some restriction on its independence regarding foriegn affairs. Niue and the Cook Islands are subject to the Queen of New Zealand, Azad Kashmir to Pakistan. All three are effectively suzerien states.XavierGreen (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I can accept this position - if it is supported by sources. As with the last case, it comes down to sources. Show me the sources! Outback the koala (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I might as well chime in and add I think this is a slippery slope. ...each polity has some restriction on its independence regarding foriegn affairs... Surely things like the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man fall under the exact same category? There would also be arguments for, in my opinion, Greenland; and I'm sure other areas I can't remember. They all act pretty close to independent states, the only difference being that some other country holds say over their foreign affairs.

I could see it argued that, for example, the Isle of Man is more "independent" than Azad Kashmir; it has it's own currency, sports teams, it is treated separately in several international organisations from the UK (most notably the EU), arguably the oldest parliament in the world. Notably, it's parliament, the Tynwald, is totally independent from the UK government, whilst according to our article the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council has 6 members from the Azad Kashmir government and 5 from the Pakistani government, and it's chairman is the president of Pakistan.

Anyway, I think that if any state is going to be included that is semi-independent like Azad Kashmir or the Cook Islands and Niue, then proper consideration should be given to the criteria used, as it's only going to lead to a whole load of claims. I'm not here to champion the inclusion of the states I mentioned, but to be honest if Azad Kashmir is included I can see no good argument for excluding them...--23230 ^talk 00:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The polities you mentioned such as Greenland and the Isle of Man would not qualify for inclusion in the list because a state must either declare independence while having control over at least a portion of its territory or be recognized as independent by another nation. If Greenland was recognized by any state as being independent than by the reasoning of some editors here it would qualify for inclusion in the list. The position of the Pakistani government is that Azad Kashmir is an independent state that wishes to undergo a plebesite in order for it to accede to pakistan (note that if it wasnt independent it would not have to accede to pakistan, they could just annex it). The Pakistani recognition of Azad Kashmir warrants its inclusion in the list of states presented in this article if Niue and the Cook Islands are added.XavierGreen (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In my view, the sources presented so far does not prove that Pakistan diplomatically recognised Azad Kashmir as the sovereign State.Jan CZ (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Crown Dependencies

I don't think Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man should be included with UK. Their relationship is with the Queen as Duke of Normandy & Lord of Mann,and is independent of the UK. Though the UK does undertake some adminidtrative responsibility for them, the Crown Dependencies do not fall under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Maybe they should be included in disputed section, like Cook Islands? Nudge67 (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Their practical reality, and the reality reflected in reliable sources, is of dependency to the UK. Their citizens hold British passports, their external affairs are managed by the UK, etc. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A poor argument on the subject of citizenship I would say. Notably, Cook Islands says Cook Islands nationals are citizens of New Zealand and can avail of New Zealand government services, which places them in the exact same category as Mann and the CIs. In fact there is a difference, as Manx and Channel Island citizens are in several ways different from British citizens (most notably being in regards to the EU). As such being a citizen of the crown dependencies does actually have a practical difference from being a citizen of, say, Manchester, where as the above passage implies that Cook Islanders don't have a huge difference in terms of citizenship as someone from Wellington outside of their own country.

For external affairs then yes, the UK does manage most of it. Though to be honest there isn't much to do. Whilst the UK is responsible for it's defence, the Manx police force answers to the Manx government so it is in control of it's on security in that sense.

To be honest it comes down to definitions and criteria. Are the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands independent? Are they sovereign? I would say that Mann and the CI are sovereign whilst not necessarily being independent, in a similar way to the Cook Islands and Niue, but others might disagree.--23230 ^talk 11:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you show any source that Man is sovereign? --maxval (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Can You show any source that Man declared independence or that any state recognized them diplomatically as sovereign State? Jan CZ (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources? Outback the koala (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The suzerainty of the Isle of Man was eliminated when it was sold to the crown in 1765. The last time it had outright independence was in 1399. Between 1399 and 1765 it was generally (with some interruption) a suzerain state similar to the marcher lordships.XavierGreen (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

FA quality list

Anyone else feel like the content of this article has improved enough in the last year to look toward FA status for this page? See Wikipedia:Featured lists. Outback the koala (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

One of the criteria is stability. We have an incoming proposal regarding Niue, so we should probably wait until that has finished before nominating. I think it'd be great if we could get in to FL though, when the time is right. Nightw 03:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Capital

You guys know how before the change in template, we stated the capital, should we make a column for capitals? –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 23:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, not very related to sovereignty. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Beware of mission creep.XavierGreen (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Mission creep?–Spesh531, My talk, and External links 16:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Mission creep is the addition of material to an article that is not part of the original concept of that article. Usually it is added in a gradual process by which things that are just outside of the conception of the purpose are added first and then things that wander further afield, until data are being added to the article just because they can be added and not because it makes sense for them to be added. --Khajidha (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ripples of this article

User:Spesh531 has been going around all sorts of country lists and changing them so CI and Niue are undistinguished from fully sovereign states (forgive my semantics). I think this is inappropriate considering the undetermined consensus over Niue here, but am bringing the matter to this page instead of mass reverting in case I'm terribly wrong. CMD (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to their inclusion anywhere but as long as it's done carefully and with a caveat noting their status (like we do with any disputed state). So this is probably okay in my eyes, but this probably not. And it's important to understand that some lists, like this one use a single source and we should present them in the same way the source does. Nightw 04:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the indiscriminate nature bothers me. I did revert this one. Also, I don't think "claims independence" is a good qualifying note, they seem as happy to keep the status grey as anyone else. CMD (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Also here, another removal on the basis that "and niue claim independence". CMD (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Other articles have different inclusion criteria which may cause the Cook Islands and Niue to be excluded. And I also note that lists based on ISO 3166-1 can fairly easily do whatever is done for Taiwan.

At present, of course, there is no consensus that Niue is a sovereign state. IMO implementing a consensus that does not exist is not appropriate. Pfainuk talk 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This has made up all of Spesh531's latest edits. CMD (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Alerted Spesh to this thread. Nightw 11:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I edited some to change their notation from that of being a state with limited recognition, but left associated state notes when they were there. That was what I read the consensus here to be. CMD (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, CMD I just left a little note on your talk page. Fill me in...I must be missing something. You're correct on geography about 99.9% of the time. So what am I missing on Niue and Cook Is.? I have to agree with other editors ....The World Factbook , National Geographic Society, every atlas that I've seen, about 95% of independent states, and the NZ govt. all consider them not to be fully sovereign....not independent states. Should they be on the list, of course. Fully sovereign?...That's WP: Fringe, yes? No authorities seem to think so. Membership in a few UN committees is something Palestine has, but we're not proposing full (bold, non-italic) status there. What am I missing? (This of course affects other pages, but I propose that we continue to use this site.) DLinth (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

/Cook Islands and Niue will fill you in completely. That 1.5 year of discussion lead to the thread at the bottom of that page. It has also informed me that the New Zealand government is happy to consider them fully sovereign independent states. Apparently. My edits to the other pages were mostly following Spesh531's edits to stop the CI/Niue being presented in the same vein as Abkhazia and Kosovo (as it is a completely different situation). I'm still not a fan of how they're presented in this table (and that'll probably apply to others) but there was some sort of (perhaps tenuous) consensus here, which I'm following until I or someone else calls it into question. CMD (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As always, concise, well-informed, even-handed CMD logic, editing. Yes, nothing like Abhazia, etc., but that's ok because they're in a "catch-all", "other" category on this and most lists. There's no problem IMHO (as most at /Cook Islands and Niue say) with inclusion of these two on various lists......as long as they are not portrayed as fully sovereign/independent. As you know, there is a wide consensus among international geographic institutions, publishers, cartographers, the UN, The World Factbook, atlases, etc. that they are not fully sovereign/independent. WP is a compendium of those sources, not a mini-UN Gen. Assembly...Of course, WP does not override published sources and international authorities (UN) by a 6 to 5 "consensus" vote (at /Cook Islands and Niue. Yes, both entities have some level of sovereign status, as with the Faroe Islands and Greenland and others, but are certainly not fully sovereign/independent (yet), as you know.

BTW, NZ may say (below) that "they're fine with that" or "are happy to consider" or "sovereign this, sovereign that", just, as you know, the UK said that "they'd be fine with" any number of states in the '50's, 60's gaining full sovereignty (many eventually did, some (Bermuda, various Caribbean islands) did not.) But, ironically, any NZ statement would not be terribly relevant other than an actual "NZ has today granted to and recognized full independence by Niue/Cook Is.") statement...which we've not seen....then followed by similar recognition by international authorities, the UN, international authorities, etc....which we're not even close to seeing. DLinth (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the relevant points in the discussion was actually recognition by other states, based on the stated inclusion criteria. There are clear statements of recognition for the Cook Islands, but the point was debatable for Niue. (I'm surprised to see Niue actually on the list, since by my reckoning there wasn't consensus for change in that case.) It was argued that these two states' full membership in certain UN organisations does constitute recognition, but this was not a determining factor. The determining factor, as documented in /Cook Islands and Niue, was our own rules for inclusion as stated by the article.

When it comes down to it, we have just had a round of this discussion. May I suggest that we wait a while before we start another round of it? Pfainuk talk 19:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Statistics Table as the intro

Where did this table above the list come from? Its extremely confusing and out of place. I was going to just remove it but I thought I'd come here first. Anyone know whats up? Opinions? Outback the koala (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts were pretty much the same. "Widely recognized" is back, it seems... Nightw 09:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Too much statistics. Grioghair (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed. It's difficult enough trying to classify all the grey cases without turning everything into statistics. CMD (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sovereignty dispute column

What's the criteria of this column again? Written, it states, "only states that are claimed in whole by another sovereign state are mentioned". Palestine would not qualify, since Israel does not claim Gaza. Nightw 12:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we accept the fuzziness here? Israel does something with Gaza. It used to claim it, now I have no idea, and I doubt Israel has a clear idea either. CMD (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Meh. I guess so. Nightw 04:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone changed the sovereignty status for Israel to "Not recognized by 33 states, including most Arab states." This does not seem to fit the criteria. Or does Palestine claim the whole of Israel (maybe the Hamas government in Gaza)? Grioghair (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hamas certainly does, but there's no connection yet between the State of Palestine and Hamas. Nightw 15:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Israel. What a pain. It feels that Israel fits perfectly into what should go into that column, although our chosen wording isn't that good. The wording was chosen to show that it wasn't just minor territorial claims, but the entire state in question. Israel's entire statehood is unrecognised by these countries. Is it enough of a problem to rewrite? CMD (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Really, what ever items are on this list I would expect to see in that column, since I thought that was what it was for. So I would agree with a rewrite. Nightw 16:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with the need for a rewrite. Israel is just too significant for us to ignore. Outback the koala (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cyprus is also not recognized by Northern Cyprus and Turkey and should possibly be made red in this column. And what about Armenia..? I would however not like to see a much more lenient criteria, because that would probably result in many more ambiguous cases. The criteria are very clear at the moment, only the implementation is vague. Grioghair (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

An IP has removed it. Sigh. How about "Only states whose entire sovereignty disputed by another state are listed." After all, if Israel doesn't meet the requirements, neither does Palestine. CMD (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Better then inconsistency... Grioghair (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should aim for consistency in the sovereignty disputes that we list. So if we've listed South and North Korea, we should also list Armenia and Cyprus. Like User:Grioghair I think the current criteria seem sensible and we shouldn't weaken them to include examples where there is only a territory dispute, rather than one of sovereignty. Are there any other examples besides Armenia, Cyprus and the other states we have listed? SP-KP (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and make the change. If consensus is against me, this is the diff should anyone want to change things back. SP-KP (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've alo changed the criteria in the article for the sovereignty dispute column. Grioghair (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to bring into this column not only claiming, but also not-recognizing, you need to add information about non-recognition also for states such as Kosovo, Palestine, etc. If Your change will remain, it is necessary to supplement the information to all other not recognized states. Personally, I'm inclined to return to the original, because claiming and not recognizing is very different. Claiming in principle threatens the existence of the State (as South Ossetia), non-recognition only weakens the position of the State (as Armenia) on the international arena. Jan CZ (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of the information of non-recognition for other states is already in the More information column, where there is plenty of room for further notes. I also did not like it that states that only lack overall recognition where added, but it was necessary to come to a consensus on the Israel/Palestine problem. You also cannot ignore that there is a Sovereignty dispute for a state with only non-recognition. Using "None" for these states is just not correct. If it should be only about claiming, then the column should be renamed to something like "Claimed by". Grioghair (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

So is the sovereignty of Armenia disputed by Pakistan? It is clear from the given sources that in the opinion of the Pakistani government that it does not recognize Armenia as a country. And in my opinion not recognizing a country implies disputing sovereignty. Grioghair (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-recocgnition and lack of diplomatic relations are closely tied concepts distinct from disputing sovereignty. A sovereignty dispute necessarily involves one country regarding a territory to be the sovereign territory of a government other than the one in control. The column cannot accommodate all instances of "non-recognition" as the the countries in that column would be endless. Under customary international law, a state can exist absent the recognition of other states. For there to be a sovereignty dispute, the other states must not only refuse to recognize a particular state, but actively assert that the particular state is not a sovereign entity.--Jiang (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I have already raised some concerns before (see above) on broadening the criteria for the column, for also I foresaw that it might result in more countries dubiously being added. However, as stated above, Israel and Pakistan did not fit into to old criteria anymore, while people could not accept that they where not mentioned in this column. Therefore the criteria where changed. I would gladly go back to the old definition, but then a solution must be found for Israel and Pakistan (sheez.. it looks like the UN security council in here). Secondly, I don't see how a state can regard another state to be a sovereign entity, while not recognizing the state. I'm not talking about non-recognition of governments (which is more common), but about non-recognition of the country or state. Saying that a country/state does not exist seems to be the same as denying sovereignty of the state. I don't think that the exact words 'sovereign entity' have to be used for this. Grioghair (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The idea of changing the wording is to have the wording fit the list, not to change the wording and then change the list by adding Armenia. Refusal the accept the passports of a state is often evidence absent diplomatic relations. Saying "X country doesn't exist" is not evidence, as sovereignty disputes imply that official of country Y are forbidden to utter the word X. If Pakistan disputes Armenia's sovereignty, then what does it consider Armenian territory to be - stateless territory? --Jiang (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Ask the Pakistanis.. maybe they think it is still part of some defunct USSR. I find the business of denying the existence of other states that clearly exists rather childish and stupid. I don't get your argument on officials that are forbidden to say the other states name. I find it hard to believe that is true for all of the other cases where sovereignty is disputed. I would like to ask you in which cases you consider there would be a 'true' sovereignty dispute, and why. Especially for Israel and Pakistan.. they don't claim each others complete territory, but Palestine is not recognized by Israel (and US) and Israel not recognized by some Arab states. Grioghair (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In all likelyhood it would consider it to be terra nullis, that is the way the United States handles its position on the Western Sahara it recognizes neither claim to the territory and no one as controlling it.XavierGreen (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Image?

The top of the page now looks bare. What do people think about adding a map or something to lighten it up. An blank grey map with political borders or even something with labels like this or this. Any thoughts? Nightw 13:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither of those include all of the states on our list, shouldn't we have a map that has all of them if we're going to have a map at all? I thought the commons might have something for us, but I couldn't find anything when I looked for about 10 mins just now... Outback the koala (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Azawad

Now that Azawad has declared independence ([33], [34]) after seizing control over a permanently populated territory ([35]) it would seem that they meet all of our criteria for inclusion. Any objections to adding them? TDL (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It fits criteria (a). Grioghair (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, per above comments. Evzob (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Concur. That was fast. CMD (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It appeared twice on the list. I have deleted the duplicate. Eopsid (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflicting with me on that, you blaggard! If anyone find a source dealing with its name in English, especially its long name, please bring it here. CMD (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Languages

I've had this page on my watchlist for a while, and for a long time I've been silent on this topic. However, it has been getting very silly. User:Spesh531 has been going on a crusade adding more languages to the countries. Looking through the history he has done this to so many countries, in many adding languages that are in no way official with no sources.

The latest one really forced me to act - [36] Really? Adding the name of France in German with the reason "german significant from ww2" ?? That's almost insulting and frankly irreverent. He used the same argunemt for adding Italian to Croatia [37] even though I would have thought that one might have a much better historical logic behind it given the power of the Italian states in the Adreatic, it still is a stupid reason. This is another example [38], really? Adding the name of Bulgaria in Turkish "it was under the ottomans, so turkish is important"? For a start the Ottoman Empire didn't even use modern Turkish, secondly Bulgaria has been independent of the Ottoman Empire for over a hundred years, and in case you noticed the Ottoman Empire doesn't exist anymore. There has never been a country ruling Bulgaria that used "Bulgaristan – Bulgaristan Cumhuriyeti" as an official name for it.

There is a lot of adding languages to countries because they used to be part of their empires, Italian to Albania, Russian to Armenia, Hungarian to Romania and Austria. I don't doubt that there are some Hungarian speakers in Austria but do we really need the Hungarian for Republic of Austria in this article? (It is also slightly unbalanced under that logic that Hungary doesn't have its name in German I should point out...). If I were from these countries I would be insulted.

Secondly that also has been the other issue, adding many names in languages spoken there that don't have anything to do with the country - in this case in English. Just because over a third of French or Finnish people speak English don't mean we should have it listed there. This is doubly stupid because the name is in English already in bold, this is the English Wikipedia. (Frankly I see having the name in English twice as totally useless, why do you need it to say: Guyana – Co-operative Republic of Guyana English: Guyana – Co-operative Republic of Guyana? But that's another issue.) Adding it to France or Finland is just pointless, I'm pretty sure almost every country has a good number of English speakers so why not add English to every country?

This is looking a bit rant-y, almost personal, so I'll sum up. I don't disagree with everything User:Spesh531 has done, and he's not the only one either, I did note several examples of people adding minority languages to Greece and similar things. My point is this We need to formalize what languages are used. I would personally rely on the articles, they should know and it is good to have a standard across the wiki.Andorra just used Catalan in the top of the infobox so just use that. Haiti uses French and Creole. South Africa should include all it's official languages, Ukraine only has Ukrainian in the infobox but Russian and Crimean Tatar in the lead so I would include them. There is List of official languages but it is not in the right form for this, it's still not a bad idea to consult that too. It's not a perfect system but it would be better than the free-for-all that exists now. Any comments?--23230 ^talk 09:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It has gotten ridiculous. The languages used on the top of country infoboxes are by convention (which I note to be unwritten anywhere) the official languages. If other editors here still think that having just official languages is too restrictive, how about having every language with any official status in that country? (eg. minority languages, official languages of subnational regions, etc.) This would be quite broad, but it would set new limits, as whatever old unspoken limits we had have been run over. CMD (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The purpose of the languages as I see it is to give the official name of the state in the original language. The purpose of this list should not be to give a overview of all languages used in the country. This is already given in the article of the state itself. So whatever names are officially communicated (by constitution or whatever) by the state should be listed and no more. I also dislike the practice of repeating the English name for countries where English is official. The English version is already given. Grioghair (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

So the United States would have no name listed since there is no official language? The whole notion of "official language" is ripe for misinterpretation and abuse since the definition of "official language" differs from country to country. Too many times in Wikipedia we get some policy bug up our shorts that simply makes things more unwieldy than they would be under some simple common sense. The old procedures here, governed by some common sense were official languages and major unofficial languages. Thus, Ukraine's entry would properly include Ukrainian and Russian, since somewhere between a third and half of all Ukrainians speak Russian as their native language. Andorra's entry would include Catalan, Castilian, and French. Spain's entry would include Basque, Castilian, Catalan, and Galician. Etc. Perhaps we simply need to start here on the Talk Page and go country by country and trim by consensus rather than taking a chain saw to the whole thing and starting over with an unwieldy "official status" nightmare. --Taivo (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course a more radical, but easily implemented and policed, alternative would be to eliminate all native names and simply list the English translation of the country's official name. --Taivo (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Count me as one who supports this radical option. The whole names in foreign languages issue causes far more headaches than it's worth. While in many cases (such as those listed by Taivo) the languages which should be listed are obvious, in many cases there is no such straightforward answer. Given that the native language names really aren't within the scope of this article, and that we already have an article on this topic (List of countries and capitals in native languages), I say we just list the english translation and wikilink to the native languages article where the issue can be dealt with properly. TDL (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I like having the other languages in the list you radicals you! But seriously, I must agree there needs to be some sort of critrea. I agree with Taivo that we cant go by official language alone - but its a good starting bloc. Our traditional method I thought was to include official languages and major unofficial languages or major minority languages. A formalized rule which can be equally administered would be good because although going case by case would work, it would be exhaustingly lengthly (and needlessly so). Forget about figuring out official status; the real quagmire is the minority languages. Outback the koala (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do you 'like' the other languages in the list? What is the purpose? I mostly can't read them anyway. As I said, it should not be about official/major language or not, it should be about giving the official name(s) in this list. So a translation wich is not officialy used in the highest levels of government should not be listed. Otherwise I would go for the radical approach. 82.197.205.246 (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

One question we're not asking is "What is the purpose?" Do we have these languages here to show off Wikipedia's font display capabilities? Do we have these languages here for someone to use? Why are they even here? And the most important aspect of that question, "What do they do for the reader?" Since our readers are English speakers, do they care what the official long-form name of Kenya looks like in Swahili? Or are we simply exercising Wikipedia's seemingly endless capacity for presenting useless trivia? I am becoming convinced that the effort we expend trimming and cultivating the language alternatives here is wasted effort at a vanity project. --Taivo (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd support radical chainsawing if it came to that. It'd eliminate that bothersome sourcing issue too. CMD (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) What seems to have skipped everyone's notice (including mine) is Note 1, which links to this UN document. Frankly I don't see why we just enforce that, only keeping the names in the languages listed there. Of course non UN members aren't covered, but there aren't many and if we have to they could be discussed individually. Honestly though I wouldn't be opposed to just scrapping them entirely if that was the decision - I like their inclusion but I agree that's not this article's scope, and it would make things easier to deal with. For now however I would be happy to cull the list down to only those used in the UN source as a basis.--23230 ^talk 21:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that UN list is that it isn't an actual list of official languages, but is a list of "languages used in official documents". That's a different thing altogether. For example, India's entry includes English and Hindi, but there are about a dozen other languages that are officially recognized. Nigeria's entry contains only English, but there are several other major languages that have official status in Nigeria. English is the common language used in India and Nigeria in order to maintain neutrality in government documents, but it's not really of a higher status in those countries than other languages that are officially recognized. East Timor is in the same situation vis a vis Portuguese and the half dozen native languages that are all official. No, that list isn't any more useful here than any other list. Again, if we're only going to use "official languages", then the entry for the United States must be left blank. And, as evidenced ad nauseum in the discussions leading up to the current form of the list, there are those who consider anything the UN does to be POV anyway. I'm simply becoming more convinced that we should simply scrap all those alternate names for this list. --Taivo (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I am favor of using this UN list as the basis for the names. For, ironically, the reason Taivo already gives, that it isn't a list of official languages but a list of languages used in official government business. The purpose is not to give an overview of all official languages. Using this UN list will result in a good decrease in languages listed. Taivo, you worry about the entry for United Stats will be left blank, thats ridiculous. According to this document its National Official language is English. English is already the language of this wiki and the English names will always be present. Grioghair (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

But, Grioghair, English is not the "national official language" of the United States. That's the point. The UN list is uneven and unofficial. It's actually just one POV on the matter and isn't comprehensive. We can quibble over this for another week, but, in the end, we have to return to the question, "So what? Why is this information even here?" --Taivo (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, let's forget about the language of the USA. No matter what language is official or not official for the USA, the English name will always be present. Secondly, you ask about the purpose. Well, I think the purpose is the give the 'real' name of the states. Why is it relevant? Correct me if i'm wrong, but i once read that the UN uses the 'official' names of the states in their original language to create an alphabetical ordering for the seating of the states, or something. That could be relevant. But in the end, i don't have too much problem with the radical approach. I just think their will be a considerable amount of people who don't like it if all the translation of the names will be removed. Grioghair (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Israel 32 or 33 Countries Don't Recognize Sovereign Status?

The notes show a different number than the dispute. Which is right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.209.209.129 (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Somaliland control

Both the SADR and Palestine extents note that the proclaimed states don't control their whole claimed area. Neither does Somaliland. Are there any sources for the amount of territory Somaliland claims but doesn't control, either in percentages or figures? How clear is on the ground control? CMD (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Somaliland's control on the ground is very clear and mostly undisputed in the central and western parts of the claimed territory, but there are definitely claimed areas in the east that are completely out of its control (nominally in control of Puntland and Khatumo, autonomous states loyal to Somalia). But there are probably a lot of gray areas too, and I'm not sure how to calculate the percentage. We'd need to do a careful analysis to even estimate it. I might be able to do that sometime in the future, but not right now. Keep in mind that probably the majority of all states in the world, including recognized U.N. members, claim more territory than they actually control or administer. Evzob (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Cook Islands, Niue place in the Oceania template and all other WP articles

Currently CI and Niue are included in the List of sovereign states, but now the ripples of that decision are coming to other Wikipedia articles. Some editors object making those other articles consistent with this one here. See here. So, maybe it'll be useful if there is a section here, where they can be pointed to - something as a FAQ.

The relevant points of contention with one editor so far are the following (some are mutually exclusive, but anyway):

Q:Cook Islands and Niue are not fully independent sovereign states. A:The List of sovereign states includes only fully independent sovereign states. Any other entity doesn't belong in that list. Editor who has new arguments/sources, not taken into account so far should open a discussion at Talk:List of sovereign states requesting their removal from that list. All other articles listing sovereign states use that master list.
Q:Cook Islands and Niue are only with limited recognition. A:The List of sovereign states includes all sovereign states. The topic for recognition problems and sovereignty disputes is at List of states with limited recognition. Editor who has new arguments/sources, not taken into account so far should open a discussion at Talk:List of states with limited recognition requesting the appropriate change. All other articles listing states with limited recognition use that master list.
Q:Cook Islands ans Niue are somehow "different/other/in the bottom" A:This difference/otherness/bottom-ness is undefined and thus there's no answer.

I think this "issue" comes simply from unfamiliarity with the subject perpetuated in various sources, especially such that are generally reliable, but still unofficial and not strictly diplomatic. The arbitrary division of the list here doesn't help either - the list has unhealthy over-reliance on the UN membership (that's not a requirement for statehood or sovereignty and also isn't strictly a proof either) - UN membership replaces the alphabetic ordering (alphabetic order is the general rule for lists), UN membership is also mentioned in a separate column. This is redundant. Subtle nuances are arbitrary (adding observers to the ordering without any explanation why; adding Vienna formula organizations to the column without actually explaining that this formula is the reason to add them - hiding that behind the UN System simply solidifies the unhealthy UN over-reliance and redundancy) and also obviously lost on the readers.

IMHO the natural feeling division is between states that indisputably have recognition problem (Taiwan, Kosovo, Palestine, Somaliland, Transnistria, TRNC, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, SADR) and those that are regular members of the international community and enjoy wide (even if not universal) recognition. Cook Islands and Niue obviously belong to the regular members of the international community - no less than obscure remote small island states like Tuvalu or Nauru, no less than associated states like Palau or Micronesia and no less than states under heavy foreign influence (but still fully independent) like Monaco or Liechtenstein. Also having the Vatican City/Holy See in the group of regular members, but keeping the Cook Islands out of it is very strange and inexplicable.

Two things should be made perfectly clear to the reader by looking at the List of sovereign states (or a FAQ on its talk page):

There are sovereign states who are not members of the UN - this is accomplished right now

There are sovereign states who are regular peers in the international community regardless of not being members of the UN - the article lacks on that one - otherwise the linked discussion at the nav.template wouldn't be required.

Japinderum (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Accusations by DLinth

Japinderum, that's a new low....blanking out three other editors' discussion on this topic, and inserting your own. I've restored it above. You were the one who suggested moving it here.

I'm not going to repeat or rewrite the above discussion; it's clear to most of us that CI and Niue will not move to the list of ~195 fully independent, fully sovereign states until something happens other than your erroneous, un-sourced conclusions above.

That "something" will have to be some combination of what is totally lacking now: UN full membership recognition, and/or listings by established sources/atlases/books in the independent list (not where they virtually ALL have them now (non-independent)...I notice you haven't offered a single source of that type....and/or CI and Niue actually declaring independence or voting for it (not against it as they did), and/or removing their NZ citizenship, and/or perhaps (as with South Sudan, not yet Kosovo or Western Sahara) UN recogntion plus recognition as fully independent states by 100 or 150 other states (as with every other one listed here in the main list), not 1 or 3 as with CI/Niue.....That's a lot of determining factors on this issue where CI/Niue strike out on every one!

For now, I agree with CMD...With no agreement on a compromise that I offered there, the Oceania template will have to stay with the (3+ year status quo) (the edit recently made by CMD) with just the two categories, with CI and Niue and those in the "other territories" list at the bottom there (and not elevated to the "top tier" category without an asterisk or explanation)....(BTW, that's consistent with Oceania, Niue, Cook Islands, Associated states, dozens of WP country lists, List of Sovereign States, every template and list of countries for Europe, Asia, Africa....No, CI and Niue are not fully independent, fully UN-recognized, "main list" at List of Sovereign States because you believe them to be....That will remain up to the venerable sources World Factbook, Times Atlas (UK), National Geographic Society, the ~195 states of the international community, the UN, and CI and Niue themselves, and not WP editors. DLinth (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

DLinth, I haven't blanked anything. You opened a new section here with MY comments about a DIFFERENT article. I simply put these back here (along with subsequent replies - without deleting anything), where they come from. What I suggested was that If you want to open a debate about "what are CI/Niue?" - you should do this yourself, here. Not to open some UNRELATED section with comments signed with MY name.

Then, because it seems we need a debate about "List of sovereign states is master, other articles listing those states for other purposes use this master list" I wrote the "Cook Islands, Niue place in the Oceania template and all other WP articles" section. There I also put a link to the MY comments you copied here, so that everybody can also check on our discussion that shows the need for this debate.

"CI and Niue will not move to the list of ~195 fully independent, fully sovereign states" - No, they are already included in this list. The whole List of sovereign states is the list of fully independent, fully sovereign states. Please read FAQ answer1 above. If you think that they should not be included - you should propose their removal.

I given you dozens of official UN lists, where CI/Niue are placed without any distinction along the rest of the states regular members of the international community. I gave you official UN sources explicitly stating that CI/Niue are such. You haven't replied to that - have you even opened the links?

But this doesn't matter - since you haven't proposed to remove CI/Niue - my disagreement with you is about something else - your refusal to include states from "List of sovereign states" in the "sovereign states" section of another Wikipedia article. You want to keep another Wikipedia article "sovereign states" section inconsistent with the List of sovereign states. I disagree with that.

"UN full membership recognition" - what does this mean? "CI to get UN membership", "CI to be recognized by the UN as fully independent sovereign state", something else? Do you claim that no state is fully independent unless it has UN membership?

The other items in your post I also have addressed multiple times already at the nav.template talk page - you haven't replied to my comments. Please, reply, so that we can have a discussion. It's really frustrating, because from my point of view our current interaction seems like that:

DLinth: I think A is black, because of 1, 2, 3.

Japinderum: No, I think A is white, because of 4, 5, 6. About 1 - see 7 that proves it wrong, about 2 - see 8 that proves it wrong, about 3 - see 9 that proves it wrong.

DLinth: You are coming to a new low. Everybody knows that A is black, because of 1, 2, 3.

Please, tell me what you think about 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Japinderum (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

from Benefits of alphabetic ordering

Agree with CMD's sentiments. Japinderum, congratulations on about the most transparent "end-around" attempt I've seen on WP in years, an attempt immediately above to "get" what you've been unsuccessful at "getting" for three or four months now. You want to change what we have here, what we've had in dozens and dozens of WP articles since "the beginning": Niue and Cook Islands at a level just (barely) below, but clearly below, the "main, fully independent" list in status. That reflects reality, sorry. UN agrees. Heck, CI and Niue agree....New Zealand citizenships and they have not even declared independence.

And your suggestion immediately above, throwing in the Kosovo's, Palestine's, Abhazia's, Somaliland's, etc. with the ~195 widely recognized states, would really muddy the water, confuse readers, mislead readers, and be inconsistent with two dozen other WP lists, inconsistent with how most atlases and reference sources do it (and inconsistent with the UN and reality.) Definitely not.DLinth (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not attempting anything. I haven't added CI and Niue to the list here and I haven't made the split of the list. Actually, for months I refrain from opening that particular debate (the arbitrary and POVish unexplained split in the list here) - I don't know what arguments they used to back it (or simply common sense has given up and pushy editors like you made what they wanted), and I posted below only after my unsuccessful attempts to have an UNRELATED discussion with you (I don't argue about "what are CI/Niue"), where it seems you don't even understand what I argue about (it seems you think I argue that "CI/Niue are fully independent sovereign states", but I argue that "WP articles listing sovereign states should include everything listed at the List of sovereign states. Arguments to exclude somebody should be put forward at List of sovereign states and not on other articles dealing with subjects different from sovereignty and statehood, and even less on purely maintenance articles such as navigation templates"). Does my previous sentence make it clear why "inconsistent with two dozen other WP lists" is turned on its head? It's "all other articles" that should be consistent with List of sovereign states, not the other way around! Who's included and who isn't is first decided here and then simply copied to all other articles. I thought this is obvious, but now I have to ask - do you agree?

Do you agree that the List of sovereign states rules of arrangement should be general and not custom-tailored so that specific states are placed at the "right place" (according to one editor or another)? Japinderum (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Content-related opinions needed

I don't expect big disagreements over the above (since they are editorial and not dealing with the topics themselves), but the following ones are direct questions about content itself: Japinderum (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There are sovereign states who are not members of the UN.
(according to the current list articles: Taiwan, Kosovo, Palestine, Somaliland, Transnistria, TRNC, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Cook Islands, SADR, Niue, Holy See)
There are sovereign states who are regular peers in the international community (have wide recognition) - regardless of not being members of the UN.
(according to the current list articles: Cook Islands, Niue, Holy See)
There are sovereign states who are regular peers in the international community (have wide recognition) and members of the UN - regardless of not having universal recognition.
(according to the current list articles: PRChina, South Korea, Israel, North Korea, Cyprus, Armenia)
There are sovereign states who are not regular peers in the international community (don't have wide recognition) - regardless of participating in the UN System.
(according to the current list articles: Taiwan, Kosovo, Palestine)
There are sovereign states who are regular peers in the international community, who are members of the UN and who have universal recognition.
(according to the current list articles: UN members other than PRChina, South Korea, Israel, North Korea, Cyprus, Armenia)
There are sovereign states who are not regular peers in the international community (don't have wide recognition) and who are not participating in the UN System.
(according to the current list articles: Somaliland, Transnistria, TRNC, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, SADR)

Comments

Please refrain from focusing too much on particular examples and let's first see whether we agree that those combinations exist in the first place. Japinderum (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The problematic points above are of course the definitions of "regular peer in the international community" and "wide recognition" - obviously those aren't related to a particular "recognition threshold" (The State of Palestine is example of having over 2/3 recognition and still not being a generally accepted regular peer, many states and organizations dealing instead with the PNA or PLO; additionally, in general and not only for Palestine, to calculate any threshold/percentage we need two figures - the number of recognitions and the total number of entities granting recognitions - and we have difficulties with both of these. Some states have a policy of not granting recognitions at all and of only establishing diplomatic relations. Some editors argue whether one implies the other, whether signing a treaty implies one or another, etc. Those come in addition to the requirement for us to make a choice whether everybody who doesn't explicitly recognize a particular state is a non-recognizer or vice-versa, e.g. silent recognition or silent non-recognition. The total number of entities to take into account for the percentage is also hard to agree on - which of the non-UN states should be included in it, which of the states with limited recognition to included, which of the non-state entities to include, etc.; the exact value of the hypothetical "recognition threshold" is also elusive and lacks a source - 1/4, 1/3, 50%, 2/3, 3/4, etc.), but to general real world practice in the realm of official diplomatic affairs. In any case, that's another point we have to decide on:

"regular peer in the international community" and "wide recognition" - aren't related to a particular "recognition threshold", but to general real world practice in the realm of official diplomatic affairs. Attempts to define that may be futile, but at least we should admit that such states exist (even if we disagree who is and who isn't of that type) Attempts to define "recognition threshold" fail on three points: number of recognizers of a particular state, total number of entities whose positions should be taken into account, the threshold value itself.
None of the two qualities ("regular peer in the international community"/"wide recognition" and "UN membership"/"UN System participation") can be unanimously defined as "more important" than the other, so it's important that both are equally represented in the article.
Holy See/Vatican City State is the most "special" of the whole List of sovereign states, because of its dual nature - a sovereign non-state entity (Holy See, the fully independent religious organization) having statehood over a territory (Vatican City). In previous historical period Holy See was stateless and the Vatican City was part of the sovereign state Italy. So, Holy See is a "fully independent sovereign" entity listed among the states because of the Vatican City territory/state it acquired. Activities of the Holy See are quite different from those of other states. Regardless of its uniqueness it has all qualities required to be included in the list.

Comments

I dont see any real problem here.

There are two main groups of sovereign entities:

- those recognized by the UN as countries - all member states + CI, Niue, Vatican,

- all other entities - Abkhazia, Azawad, Karabakh, Kosovo, North Cyprus, Palestine, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Taiwan, Transnistria, Western Sahara.

These "other entities" may be grouped into subgroups, but there is no much sense doing that.

The only theoretical problem is with CI and Niue. They are recognized by UN, so they should be in reality in the FIRST group, not in the second where they belong to in the article. Now they are in the second groups only because they are recognized by a few countries - but this is non relevant if our main criterion is the recognition by the UN. This is the only thing in the article that lacks a logical definition.

The bigger problem is with dependencies, but this is not the scope of this article. I made a new version of that article a month ago and it has been accepted by most other editors. (maxval (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC))

CI/Niue are not less recognized than Nauru, Tuvalu, Palau or Monaco (they were admitted without objections into many intergovernmental organizations with global membership who admit only sovereign states) and I agree that currently they are misplaced.

But I would like to have feedback on each of the points above, because it seems that each of us puts different meaning in the article as it is right now.

Actually, I think there's no need to have splits in the list - the two columns (for UN participation and for Disputes) convey much better the not-black-and-white details, so if we just order the list alphabetically there will be no problem - with CI/Niue, with Taiwan/Kosovo/Palestine or with any other case. But this is a separate issue - I opened another section about that. Japinderum (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

On your 2nd pont: I think we should stick ONLY to recognition by UN. Recognition by other countries should not be a main criterion. If we accept recognition by other countries, then we would have a controversial situation: in reality clearly non-sovereign entities like Palestine and Western Sahara are recognized by much more countries than clearly soverign entities like Kosovo and Abkhazia! Palestine is under Israeli sovereignity, it is just a "country-project", an autonomous entity under Israels main sovereignity, Palestine authorities have only those powers that were delegated to them by Israel, this is no real sovereignity, but something like devolution laws in the UK to Scotland and Wales! The situation with Western Sahara is even worse, they dont have permanent control over any real claimed territory. However both "countries" are recognized by a big number of countries because of pure political reasons (African solidarity with Western Sahara and Arab/Muslim/ex-Comímunist solidarity with Palestine). So I think the only criterion closest to objectivity is recognition by the UN. --maxval (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Which 2nd point you refer to? The last I said is that all of the above problems (including from your second post) are automatically solved if we don't deviate from alphabetic ordering of the list. All issues about UN participation, sovereignty disputes, etc. are already dealt with and clearly shown by the two columns. Adding an arbitrary split in the list (deviating from alphabetic ordering) serves no purpose and results in many controversies. Japinderum (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please check the archives for all the explanation you seek. We have had huge amounts of discussion, no shortage of RFCs and several mediation cases on precisely this topic. It took about two years to resolve it to this point. So unless you have really strongly overriding new arguments (and you don't so far), trying to open it back up is a very very very bad idea. Kahastok talk 18:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This section isn't suggesting any changes. The items listed above are more of a questions, e.g. "I understand the current list (e.g. there are 6 combinations of columns and 3 observations) in the following way: A is black. B is white. Does everybody see the same thing and if not, what do they see?" Obvious disagreement between me and another editor on another article prompted me to ask these questions here, at the source about "list of sovereign states". Japinderum (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You're talking about points that we have to decide upon. You seem to be talking about rearranging the list. It took a huge amount of aggravation, and a large amount of dispute resolution over the course of multiple years to decide on the current arrangement, to decide upon those points that you say still need to be decided upon. We've been there. We've done that. The fact is that none of what you say is new. At all. It's all been argued before. Repeatedly. You say you're not suggesting any changes. Well, it sounds like you are. And it really isn't somewhere you want to go. Kahastok talk 18:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No. I don't talk about rearranging the list, for sure. The first 6 items above are observations about what the current article says (it says it not with text, but by taking into account the 6 combinations of column results currently implemented in the list). I ask here only from confirmation from the other editors, that this is what they see (e.g. to confirm I haven't missed some 7th combination of column results or something else). The other 3 items are more general observations, but I ask them for the same reason - to confirm that others see what I see.

I don't say that those are points to be decided upon - by looking at the article it seems those are already decided upon (as you say - after a debate) - and of course none of what I say is new - it's already in the article. I just want to ensure that everybody is on the same page (because there are signs that we may be not). This is more an attempt to create a talk page FAQ for passing-by editors and readers. Japinderum (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Benefits of alphabetic ordering

Despite the columns (UN, Dispute) definitions aren't perfect I think that since we have those two we can simply order the list alphabetically (without redundantly involving the UN for the second time). Whoever wants to see the list separated along the UN/non-UN line will click "sort on UN column" and whoever wants to see the list separated along the dispute/no dispute line will click "sort on Dispute column". This approach has the following benefits:

alphabetic is NPOV while still clearly showing both the UN/non-UN and dispute/no dispute issues trough the column colors.
removes current redundancy and over-focusing on UN membership (see 11:29, 15 May 2012 comment above)
solves the problem of "where to put" borderline cases of "regular, but non-UN" state (Cook Islands, Niue, Vatican City), "UN system, but non-regular and limited recognition" state (Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan), "regular and UN, but not universal recognition" (Israel, Armenia, Cyprus, P.R.China, Koreas) or any other similar issue (depending on who you think is regular, UN system, limited recognition and who isn't) - there will be no borders in the list arrangement (alphabetical) and any "special-ness" of each individual state is clearly shown (and sorted upon and explained) by the UN and Dispute column colors (and text).

Thoughts, everybody? Japinderum (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

We had years of discussion over this. You expect a different result now? CMD (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with CMD's sentiments.

And your suggestion immediately above, throwing in the Kosovo's, Palestine's, Abhazia's, Somaliland's, etc. with the ~195 widely recognized states, would really muddy the water, confuse readers, mislead readers, and be inconsistent with two dozen other WP lists, inconsistent with how most atlases and reference sources do it (and inconsistent with the UN and reality.) Definitely not.DLinth (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

CMD, I really didn't want to open this issue, but our unproductive discussion with DLinth makes it obvious that this problem should be solved. Can anybody explain why we need to deviate from alphabetic ordering? And why we need to put UN membership both as split-line and as column?

DLinth, my suggestion is aimed at not having to tailor-arrange the list for particular states. And it removes the need to agree on definition about what's a "widely recognized state" (and who are those "~195" - because when you get to the details you can't have "~", "almost" and "maybe").

And my suggestion, definitely, doesn't "throw Kosovo, Palestine, Abhazia, Somaliland with the widely recognized states" - each of those will have something like NO(colored) in its UN column and each of those will have DISPUTED(colored) in its Recognition column.

That's what those columns are about - to show that not all sovereign states are in the UN and to show that not all sovereign states have universal recognition. Removing the current split in the list will allow readers to sort the list in such a way that your "tiers of states" are clearly visible - either according to the UN column or to the Dispute column. Japinderum (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you go through the archives, where your question has been answered at great length. We spent years and years and a huge amount of aggravation getting at the status quo, and you haven't made any new points yet. Kahastok talk 17:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I get this, but I don't see an answer to the questions: Why we need to deviate from alphabetic ordering (when we have columns that accomplish the same as the non-alphabetic ordering)? Why we need to put UN membership both as split-line and as column (e.g. arbitrary deciding to make one of the columns more important than the other)? Japinderum (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was entirely happy with what we ended up with. This is one of the things that it has in its favour as a consensus: nobody got everything they wanted. Not those who wanted your single alphabetical list, and not those who wanted a clear and immutable split between cases that are largely undisputed and cases that are widely rejected. Everyone compromised and after years of aggravation we reached a result. Let's not have more of that aggravation, please. Kahastok talk 18:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Those who wanted a single alphabetical list lost - and those who wanted a clear and immutable split got everything they wanted. Those who support the factually wrong notion of "UN membership supremacy over statehood and sovereignty" also got everything they wanted. That's not a compromise, but a one-sided hand twisting - you have the UN all over the place: 1. as column (like the other criteria of diplomatic recognition); 2. overriding the alphabetic order by a split (no other criteria is utilized for that - only the UN).

And of course, there's no answer about the reasons for that - if you know, please explain why we need to deviate from alphabetic ordering and why we need to represent one criteria by two methods and the other criteria by only one method. Was there an explicit decision that "UN participation is more important than diplomatic recognition and sovereignty disputes"? Or was this UN focused arrangement slipped under the radar along other changes? Japinderum (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You obviously missed the word "immutable". What those editors wanted was a far more obvious split, similar to that in the article before the change was made. And I don't go around with reasons because I really don't want to restart a debate that caused so much grief to so many people. You want to see the reasons? It's all in the archives. If you haven't found them yet I suggest you look harder. Kahastok talk 21:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The split is pretty obvious, but anyway - the problem is that having such a split requires Wikipedia editors to take a decision about which criteria to utilize, e.g. to decide which of the different criteria is more important than the others. Choosing one of the column criteria to be duplicated as split criteria is even worse (as this choice makes that criteria stand out even more).

In the archives I don't see a decision that UN participation is more important than sovereignty disputes. So, claiming consensus or decision is false - do you have a link to such decision on the importance of the criteria? Japinderum (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're joking? Yes, it has consensus. Yes, there was a decision taken. That you've not found it does not mean that we're all lying to you. Kahastok talk 18:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There are consensuses about different things in the archives - but none of those is about "UN participation is more important than sovereignty disputes". Do you know a place where such decision was taken? Japinderum (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead contradicts table

The lead of the article is wrong. It claims The list contains 207 entries. The states are divided using two distinct methods: (I assume this refers to the two columns - 'UN participation' that includes participation in the Vienna formula organizations - disguised by the editors of UN-membership-is-most-important-POV camp following their "consensus win" - under the UN System title which is unnecessary wide as it includes pure UN institutions that aren't open to non-members of the UN; Sovereignty dispute/List of states with limited recognition) - but then has a false description of the first column:

"The membership within the United Nations system column divides the states into two categories: 193 member states and one observer state in the United Nations,[1] and 13 other states."

When you look at that column you see that there are actually 198 members of UN System organizations (of which 193 members of the UN and multiple of the other organizations; 1 member of multiple of the other organizations and UNGA observer; 2 members of multiple of the other organizations; 2 members of only one - or two related to each other - of the other organizations: Kosovo at IMG/WBG, Palestine at UNESCO) and one ambiguous case (Taiwan who's participating at some UN System organizations, but isn't member of any of them, unless you take into account its membership in the WTO, but WTO isn't exactly part of the UN System. The Taiwan ambiguity is a result of the disguise of the clearly defined Vienna formula utilized by the UN-POV camp "winning" editors), and 8 other states.

So, the currently the list is divided using two methods (columns):

UN participation (vague term, but actually describing what's utilized in the status quo, resulting in 199-8 or the more nuanced 193-1-2-2-1-8) or UN system membership (disguise/UN-POV term, written in the status quo, but not actually utilized, would have resulted in 198-9 or 199-8 depending on Taiwan/WTO ambiguity) or Vienna formula (real world term, inspiration for the writers of the status quo, would have resulted in 198-9)
Sovereignty dispute (a more obvious link of that criteria to List of states with limited recognition would be welcome) resulting in 190-17

Instead of any of the real sums described (such as the 198-9 corresponding strictly to the "UN System membership" wording) above the lead utilizes wrong description of the first column: 193-1-13. It's wrong, because a major point in it (major, because it's the only one case of specially-added additional distinguisher in the description - between the "main group" and "others group" and because it singles out an individual state) utilizes UN System observership instead of membership (as written on the same line an in the column title). It's wrong, because it entirely disregards 2 states who have full membership in many UN system organizations and 2 more states who have full membership in 1 or 2 UN system organizations (all those 4 states are lumped with the "others", who don't have membership in any UN system organization). It doesn't help that this "error" endorses the misconception of the UN-membership-is-most-important-POV - along with the duplicated use of UN-criteria both for column and for most-important-list-feature and most-impressive-to-the-readers default ordering by UN-split deviating from the regular Wikipedia rule for lists - #Benefits of alphabetic ordering. Japinderum (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

See also closely-related #UN membership POV discussion below. Japinderum (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

How the List of sovereign states is applied to other articles listing states and where to discuss who is a sovereign state and who isn't

Following my unproductive discussion with DLinth it seems that we both need input from other editors on several disagreement points. I think it's beneficial if we take clear decisions on these, so that such issues don't come up again and again. Please state your opinions below:

The List of sovereign states includes only fully independent sovereign states. Any other entity doesn't belong in that list. Editor who has new arguments/sources, not taken into account so far, showing that a state included in the list doesn't cover the inclusion criteria, should open a discussion at "Talk:List of sovereign states" requesting their removal from that list.
The List of sovereign states includes all sovereign states. The topic for recognition problems and sovereignty disputes is at List of states with limited recognition. Editor who has new arguments/sources, not taken into account so far, showing that a state has limited recognition, should open a discussion at Talk:List of states with limited recognition requesting the appropriate change.
All Wikipedia articles listing sovereign states use as master list the List of sovereign states. Arguments about who has full independence, statehood, sovereignty are irrelevant elsewhere and should be directed instead only at "Talk:List of sovereign states". This preserves the consistency of Wikipedia, keeps the debate centralized in one single place and spares editors the wasting of their time for debating the same topic (who's a sovereign state) on every article that lists such states.
All Wikipedia articles (incl. List of sovereign states) listing states with limited recognition use as master list the List of states with limited recognition. Arguments about recognition are irrelevant elsewhere and should be directed instead only at Talk:List of states with limited recognition. This preserves the consistency of Wikipedia, keeps the debate centralized in one single place and spares editors the wasting of their time for debating the same topic (who's a state with limited recognition) on every article that lists such states.

Japinderum (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: notified editors who participated in the Template talk:Oceania topic discussion or associated edits. Japinderum (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

It's not clear what this dispute is about, at least based on the RFC summary above, so it's difficult to comment on it. Instead of listing the bare principles you feel affect this dispute, it would be much more helpful to offer a summary of the actual dispute(s). What sort of article changes do you and your opponents favor? Can you show diffs of them? If this is just a matter of where discussions should take place, what changes are those discussions about, and where do you and your opponents feel they should be discussed? Just some examples of the questions you should strive to answer in an RFC summary. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Responding to a RFC. I agree with Equazcion that this request for comment has not been set out helpfully. I think that whether a state is included in this list should be considered state by state and if necessary a RFC can be riased where there is a dispute. It does seem to me that overwhelmingly the states in the list are members of the United Nations so I wonder whether there is a case for having two lists, one of UN members states and a second for emerging and disputed sovereign states. I think that emerging and disputed sovereign states could be a very interesting page where information could be kept as international recognition is increased etc. South Sudan is an interesting case in point as it had not been recognised for many years. As an aside I was very surprised to see the Cook Islands, who number some 19,000 inhabitants and were a British Protectorate and New Zealand currency listed. I wonder if it is any more sovereign that say Scotland which is part of the United Kingdom. Isthisuseful (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue is general, not for a particular case. The dispute happened because those bare principles were breached. The article where the dispute originated is the navigation template for Oceania.[39] There is a group "sovereign states" and an editors keeps removing from that group two states who are listed in the List of sovereign states. But similar things can happen with any state and any article - every time a state is added or removed at the List of sovereign states (following long discussions about whether to do that or not) many other Wikipedia articles (that list states in various contexts) get updated accordingly. But sometimes there are editor who don't agree (maybe those whose side "lost" the debate for adding/removing the state in the first place) and put forward the same arguments (already discussed and dismissed) on every article - prompting a repeat of the same debate again and again everywhere. My position is that this should be avoided, debate should be centralized, and other articles listing states should be kept consistent with List of sovereign states. Japinderum (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That shouldn't even be an RFC issue, it seems more behavioral. If a dispute over this list is being discussed here, for example, the same content in the nav template shouldn't be edited by the participants until it's resolved here first. We have a rule against beginning the same debate in multiple places: WP:Forum shopping. I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with this policy, and if you see someone violating it, skip the RFC and report them directly to WP:ANI. Bring links that show their attempts at taking this dispute to different locations (I'd say editing and reverting another page, forcing you to start another discussion on that talk page, counts as the same). That nav template history shows edit warring behavior, which can also accompany the ANI report. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Right now, there's no dispute here. There is a long discussion in the archives, but there is a decision already taken and implemented here. The current dispute is with an editor who prevents this decision to be implemented also at other articles - and he brings the same arguments (that were utilized in the already archived discussion) again at the other articles. I suggested to that user to re-open the old discussion here if he has any new arguments/sources, but to stop reverting edits which make other articles consistent with the present status of the list here.

He seems civil enough so that no ANI sanctions are nessecary - if somebody else, like you did, explains to him about consistency between articles, the right place to discuss the particular topics, WP:Forum shopping and the four principles I refer to in RFC. Japinderum (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A related issue with DLinth is that he seems to think that the List of sovereign states includes some kind of "not fully" independent sovereign states (that's strange because "not fully independent sovereign states" is a self-contradicting statement, sovereign states are "fully independent" by definition) - that's why I put item1 of the RFC. Japinderum (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand that the 4 statements above are obviously true, but since already one editor (DLinth) got confused it would be really helpful for future reference if more people than me and Equazcion express their agreement with the 4 statements (or disagreements, if any). Japinderum (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, points like these were the subject of long and arduous debate. Suffice it to say that not everyone agrees with your POV that this is a purely black and white question and that there is no possibility of shades of grey.

FWIW there is no policy requirement for your points 3 and 4. Local circumstances and common sense sometimes suggest that it is more sensible to use some other configuration. Kahastok talk 18:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think points 1 and 2 are pretty simple observations of the topic of the article (so I don't understand what POV you refer to - I don't debate whether the contents are correct or not, I don't propose any changes, I don't reopen the long and arduous debate you refer to). Do you agree or disagree with points 1 and 2?

Points 3 and 4 may be a policy or not a policy (like that). What local circumstances or common sense suggest that: Wikipedia articles should contradict each other; the same issues (who's a sovereign state, who's a sovereign state with limited recognition) should be debated at different places (ensuring that the result is different on each article); the debate should be kept distributed all over Wikipedia forcing editors to waste their time for debating the same topic on every article that lists states? Japinderum (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It could be any one of a number of things, depending on the topic concerned. Fact is, there's nothing written into policy that requires articles to follow this list. Editors at other articles can choose to follow this list - it's not a bad idea in many cases. But they don't have to.

And if you really think that it is beyond dispute that Abkhazia, Kosovo or Northern Cyprus are sovereign states, as you state above, then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do to help you beyond suggesting that you go to a Georgian, Serbian or Cypriot nationalist forum outside Wikipedia and see what they think of that idea. Kahastok talk 21:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This RFC came after DLinth obstructs edit making the nav.template for Oceania topics consistent with the list here. That template has group "sovereign states" and a group "[sovereign] states with limited recognition". He removes Cook Islands and Niue from the group "sovereign states", because he thinks they are something else. He starts bringing arguments, all of which were discussed broadly in the archives here. I pointed to him the fact that all of that is already discussed and that if he wants this debate re-opened this should be done here and not there. He refuses.

Forums about Abkhazia, Kosovo or any other state are irrelevant for this RFC. Whether those are listed as sovereign states or not is an issue decided in discussion on these particular topics. The RFC is not about that. The RFC is asking "Is it clear to all editors, that the List of sovereign states includes only fully independent sovereign states and that any other entity doesn't belong in that list?" If you (or participants in other forums) think that the Republic of Kosovo isn't a state - you should propose its removal at Talk:List of sovereign states. You should not do WP:Forum shopping instead by trying to remove it from other articles, whose primary topic isn't "who's a sovereign state", e.g. articles mentioning sovereign states in whatever other context.

This means that on other articles editors should not prevent listing one of the states listed here, by utilizing arguments against its independence, sovereignty, statehood, recognition. Bringing such arguments elsewhere than here is WP:Forum shopping. If they have such arguments these should be brought here and not elsewhere. Japinderum (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Depends. Bringing up the same argument in lots of different places may well be forum shopping. And you might legitimately ask people to discuss the issue here if the local consensus is to follow the list here. But you don't get to expect that everyone has to come here regardless of circumstances. You might like it to work like that, but it doesn't.

And to save you the bother of the rest, the answer is simply that whether it only includes sovereign states depends on your POV of what constitutes a sovereign state. A list that did what you suggest would be disallowed under Wikipedia policy. Kahastok talk 18:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The same topic isn't discussed repeatedly again and again on every article where it's simply mentioned. That's forum shopping and wasting of editors time. Also, this list obviously includes only sovereign states - what else do you think the list of sovereign states includes? Inclusion is not according to my POV or your POV - it's according to editors consensus. Japinderum (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Cook Islands, Niue - extents

CMD pointed out here that the CI/Niue extent detailed descriptions are inconsistent with the List of states with limited recognition, because they may be misunderstood to imply that CI/Niue are such, when, in fact, they aren't (as you can see - unlike the real states with limited recognition the "sovereignty dispute" column of CI/Niue is empty). I agree that readers can be misled about that, because currently the extents include text similar to that of the states with limited recognition - listing who does recognize them. This isn't done for other states that aren't with limited recognition - and while the list isn't exhaustive it misleads readers into thinking that the few shown examples of recognizer states are the only who recognize CI/Niue (e.g. wrongly implying that they are with limited recognition). CI/Niue extents should be similar to that of the Vatican city (the other case of state not member of the UN - where the number of diplomatic relations established is shown instead). Another issue is that the NZ extent also differs too much from the USA extent (the other case with associated states - where those aren't listed). Also, when counting the number of diplomatic relations established the Vatican and EU should also be included (since CI/Niue have established diplomatic relations with them).

I propose the following changes:

NZ extent to be changed to: "New Zealand shares the Realm of New Zealand, one of the Commonwealth realms, with Cook Islands and Niue. New Zealand has the dependent territories of: Ross Dependency, Tokelau. The Tokelauan government ..."
CI extent to be changed to: "Cook Islands shares the Realm of New Zealand, one of the Commonwealth realms, with New Zealand and Niue. The Cook Islands has diplomatic relations with 33 partners. They have full treaty-making capacity in the UN, and are members of multiple UN specialized agencies. The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand."
Niue extent to be changed to: "Niue shares the Realm of New Zealand, one of the Commonwealth realms, with New Zealand and the Cook Islands. Niue has diplomatic relations with 7 partners. They have full treaty-making capacity in the UN, and are members of multiple UN specialized agencies. Niue is in free association with New Zealand."

Japinderum (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. CI and Niue should not be on the "other states" list, they should be transferred to the main list. They are the same case as the Vatican, so there is no reason to make a distinction between them and the Vatican. --maxval (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The agreement was to maintain the current NZ extent. The US associated states are completely different, so don't try to play on their semantics to reopen the debate again. Besides, we have entire articles implying the same thing as the two tiny extents here. Better to fix them first, I suppose. CMD (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I note in passing that maxval's proposal is untenable because neither meets the criteria for the top list. I also agree that the comparison with the US associated states is primarily semantic. And I don't really see that we have a problem here with implying that only a few states recognise the Cook Islands and Niue - that's perfectly accurate.

Worth reminding people that Niue is only on the list by the skin of its teeth as it is. My conclusion at the time was that there was no consensus either way (meaning that Niue would be excluded). The only real evidence that we could find that it passed the line (formal diplomatic recognition - as opposed to relations - from at least one state) was not accepted by many because it relied on inference from a primary source - and those opposing had a point that this is, strictly speaking, not allowed. Kahastok talk 17:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

CMD, the other article you points to explicitly states "Diplomatic recognition is an explicit official unilateral act in the foreign policy of states in regards to another party. Not having issued such a statement doesn't necessarily mean the state has objections against the existence, independence, sovereignty or government of the other party. South Sudan is not one of the states with limited recognition." - so, it's not implying anything like that.

Kahastok, the above applies to CI/Niue too. Also, there are not "only a few states that recognise CI/Niue" - CI/Niue recognition is universal or nearly universal (depending on whether you have seen a source for a state that doesn't recognize them or is disagreeing with them having statehood, sovereignty or independence?). Establishing diplomatic relations includes diplomatic recognition. Some states even have the policy of only directly establishing relations, without granting recognition beforehand. CI/Niue are regular peers in the international community (i.e. see [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], there are several dozens more where those came from). You may also want to see "...the question of the status, as a State, of the Cook Islands, had been duly decided in the affirmative by the World Health Assembly, whose membership was fully representative of the international community. ... The same solution was adopted by the Secretary-General when Niue ... Cook Islands, membership in the World Health Organization, and of its subsequent admittance to other specialized agencies ... as a full member without any specifications or limitations ..." (other sections of Chapter V may also be interesting to you). I understand the misunderstanding arising from the fact that the random mass market atlas or some unofficial list on a website may omit to display CI or Niue - but this doesn't mean that Wikipedia should be as sloppy and ignore the diplomatic sources.

NZ extent changes proposed:

The agreement to maintain the current NZ extent is one of the agreements wreaking havoc - if CI/Niue are sovereign states, why should we keep the NZ extent from the version that treated them as non-independent? So that the camp of editors objecting CI/Niue inclusion are kept happy? It's like putting a footnote along the lines "Editors X, Y and Z still aren't convinced that CI/Niue should be included, but since consensus is against them, they arranged for a consolation prize".

No other "parent" state includes "grown ups who still call for advice and help" in its extent - Palau isn't mentioned at USA extent and Monaco isn't mentioned at France extent. So that's no reason for CI/Niue to be listed at the NZ extent. The only reason for that is the shared head of state - just as every commonwealth realm has a note about that - and the difference between New Zealand (the sovereign state) and New Zealand (the commonwealth realm) should be clearly shown too - the three states (NZ, CI, Niue) are equal parts of the NZ realm despite the shared name between the realm and one of the states - just as Australia and Canada aren't subordinated in any way to the UK - despite their head of state titles being held by the same person (and succession rules).

CI/Niue extents changes proposed:

Extent of no other state without limited recognition mentions who does recognize or who doesn't. Extents of Australia and the Vatican don't have examples of countries recognizing them. There's no reason to treat CI/Niue differently than the Vatican (e.g. mentioning the number of diplomatic relations established and the participation at the Vienna formula/UN-related organizations). Japinderum (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:List of states with limited recognition#South Sudan. Also, your one note doesn't change the fact the article opens with "Many states have recognised South Sudan upon independence, or announced planning to do so", and has a map with "recognition" coloured in. CMD (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As you know I'm aware of the S.Sudan discussion. If you want to change the leading sentence of that article, fine. If you want to play the "I don't get the difference between explicit and implicit", fine. Please don't dilute the discussion here with separate issues. Please comment on what's proposed (which is more than what's even remotely related to S.Sudan). Japinderum (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I get the difference. Readers of the article won't, as the article isn't written to show the difference. I've commented on what's proposed. So have others, in a very long very tiring discussion. CMD (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

CMD, please let's use this talk page to discus this article, not other ones. What's your opinion on the rationale for the proposed changes given in my opening and 08:11, 22 May 2012 comments? Japinderum (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the change from recognitions to diplomatic relations. Besides that, I don't think the extents should be changed. There are archives above that explain all the opinions. Don't forget that the countries inclusion is only based on the thinnest of consensus. CMD (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I note with interest that you are unaware of the formal diplomatic relations between the governments of France and Quebec (given that France does not recognise Quebec as an independent sovereign state). Kahastok talk 21:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is just a Wikipedia myth. Quebec and France have what they have called a "special relationship" but no source says they have diplomatic relations. Ladril (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to be more clear (we have had this debate many times before and no agreement seems to be in sight) - there is no treaty or other formal agreement on diplomatic relations between France and Quebec. France gives Quebec a treatment similar to that of an independent state, but there is no formal acknowledgment of Quebec being such. The Cook Islands and Niue, on the other hand, do have formal diplomatic relations with other countries. Ladril (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The current NZ extent includes statements such as "NZ has responsibilities for CI/Niue". Australia also has "responsibilities" for Nauru, France has "responsibilities" for Monaco, USA has "responsibilities" for their associated states, etc. but none of this is mentioned. The current NZ extent is a Frankenstein result of the previous list (where CI/Niue were NOT included) and the current list (where they are included). I assume where this Frankenstein result comes from - the editors opposing CI/Niue inclusion dragged their foot over the text of the extents and achieved a "carefully crafted compromise" where CI/Niue are "neither included, nor excluded" and "everybody wins"... But this is simply bad editing bringing confusion and inconsistency. Every state should be either included or excluded and we should not utilize such limbo-status pseudo-compromises. It's better to altogether exclude CI/Niue from the list (regardless that I oppose that) than to having the present mess.

The current NZ/CI/Niue extents also fail to show that the Realm of New Zealand is separate from the homonymous state New Zealand. CI/Niue extents don't mention the realm at all - in all other cases where one person is the Head of State of more than one state it's mentioned, only in those two it isn't.

I don't suggest that CI/Niue aren't mentioned in NZ extent, but that the wording is rephrased - as shown on top of this section. If there aren't other suggestions how to correct the deficiencies mentioned above I propose to implement the rephrasing shown above. Japinderum (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)