Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive 3

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Sealand

Surely Sealand deserves to be included, on any of the normally accepted definitions of sovereignty. TharkunColl 12:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sealand is a state under the Montevido Convention. It complies with all terms:

(a) a permanent population. The Bates family lives permanently on Sealand.

(b) a defined territory. There is a debate as to how much, but Sealand is recognized as owning some territory.

(c) government. Certainly. Sealand has a functioning leadership.

(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. During the brief attempted coup, the Netherlands and Germany negotiated directly with Sealand to provide for the release of their countries' prisoners.

If nobody objects, I will add Sealand. --203.198.23.68 08:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I object on teh grounds that (d) is not actually meet. Sealand has no form of communications with ANYONE, much less diplomatic relations, excpt via a post offic box in the UK. Any phone or data links are exclusivly provided by the UK. Dalf | Talk 12:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article on Sealand: "The interactions of the UK and German governments with Sealand constitute de facto recognition. Sealand claims de facto legitimacy on this basis." We can't contradict ourselves. Sealand is de facto recognized, and should be on this page.--Imp88 23:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Aside form what Shocktm says below. My point that it does not have the capacity to enter into relations with the other states from a technical perspective stands. Dalf | Talk 05:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously - Sealand is not a country and should not be listed. Reality check - Paddy Bates is just a squatter on HM Rough Tower. While he claims it to be a country, it could never be considered a country as it has no territory (It is is a man-made structure, which by definition is not a territory). Also it has not been recognized by any other country (Recognition has to be mutual and both Germany and the UK have stated the do not recognize Sealand). -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 02:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe you're right, but isn't this a double standard? I don't recall Transnistria interacting with any foreign goverments. And a few countries on the list aren't recognized either. Not to mention that Sealand not only claims HM Rough Tower, but 3 km of ocean around it. Hong Kong has a huge portion of man-made area, and we don't say that it isn't territory. --Imp88 06:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-recognition isn't the issue, I would say population and territory really are too marginal. The term state does imply a certain critical mass. Though the fact that the family permanently lives there does make it a borderline case. sephia karta 14:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Lack of recognition does not imply lack of legitimacy. Customary international law. However, reality check can certainly apply to things like territory and population. Sephia, are you sure that the family permanently lives there? I am under the impression that no one lives on the platform. The entire population of Sealand are citizens and permanent residents of England. That applies to both Paddy and Michael (although the latter is reported to be a frequent visitor to the platform). With regards to Transnistria, its ministries do interact with foreign goverments. Last week alone, its minister of foreign affairs signed sixteen agreements with various ministries and government departments in Russia. - Mauco 18:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I assumed they did, if they don't then that's that. sephia karta 18:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. That's that. - Mauco 18:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind then. --Imp88 04:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Abkhazia and South Ossetia

According to the argument that I have presented above several weeks ago and for which I haven’t received any counter arguments I am removing Abkazia from the list completely. Also, I am removing South Ossetia because it is not a sovereign region but a part of Georgian territory occupied by Russia. Here is proof: 1) Almost entire South Ossetian population has Russian Citizenship 2) Russia does not require visas for people who live in South Ossetia (while it does for the rest of Georgia) 3) Russia directly appoints leaders and minister of South Ossetia (i.e. minister of defense of South Ossetia is a Russian citizen who is currently on active military duty with Russian department of defense). 4) Russian “peacekeeping” forces do not perform their peacekeeping duties (this was recently recognized by Georgian parliament) but rather are occupy Georgian territory and oppress Georgian population. Irakliy81 19:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are both de facto independent states, along with Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, and Transnistria. It's Georgia's POV that South Ossetia belongs to it. --Khoikhoi 20:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read the criteria of de facto independence again. Neither Abkhazia nor South Ossetia fit those criteria. Irakliy81 20:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

How you should define "de facto independent states"? In such a way any enclave in a fighting African country is "de facto independent state" since the groups struggling/living there don't obey central governments and are effectively "independent". In the same way, any village temporarily controlled by Taliban in Afghanistan is "de facto independent state". In fact as long as I know "South Ossetia" is not much different from those, just a town of 15,000 declaring idependence surrounded by few villages several controlled by Georgian central government, others by Russian "Peacekeepers". International recognition in fact remain a conventional but a proper criteria not to increase the number of "states" or "nations" to infinity. If you like to keep these enclaves somewhere in the list, a better way were to create a section "dispute areas" or something like that rather than making the list of the world political nations vague.

Khoikhoi, read the following, please. And reply, if you have ANY arguments. Othervise, stop reverts:

As it was already said, listing of the uncontrolled territories together with sovereign states, like USA, South Korea, etc is an absurd. There is one more question, how about Western Papua, and the Burmese (Myanmar) territories of the Kachin, Karen, Wa, Shan and other peoples? They are absolutely de facto independant from the Burmese government. Many territories in Northern Caucasus (not only in Chechnya) are not controlled by Russia. Pakistani government has absolutly no control over the territory of Waziristan. Do you think that all these territories (and many more which I haven't mentioned) are more controlled by the central governments than South Ossetia for example? If you do, you are really wrong. I don't think we must have double standards here. Ok, if all the uncontrolled regions are in the list of countries, as Jiang has justly mentioned, it's no need to create a section for "unrecognized countries". If someone thinks, there should be such a section with separatist regions included, I won't object. What I say, is that Sovereign States must be in a separate list from the uncontrolled territories. Now, I'm removing the separatist regions from the List. Pirveli 20:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead an add those regions. Be my guest, except West Papua which is part of Indonesia. I'm only worring about Abkhazia and South Ossetia. You may see them as "separatist regions", but guess what? They're independent countries simply not recognized by other countries! Stop reverting. --Khoikhoi 20:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

(This is my previous post but apparently you haven't read it) OK, here are some facts about Abkhazia. All Abkhazian’s have Russian citizenship and don’t need visas to travel to Russia. All Russian citizens can freely enter Abkhazia as if it was just another region of Russia. This is at the time when Russia requires visas for all Georgian citizens and recognizes Abkhazia as part of Georgia (a little inconsistent, don’t you think?). Almost entire Georgian population (about 45% of total population) was expelled from Abkhazia with active support of Russian military during the war of 1992-1993. After the war was over, the same Russian soldiers who fought against Georgian army transformed themselves into a “peacekeeping force” that in reality is Russian occupation force. Since 1993 more than 2,000 ethnic Georgians were killed by Abkhazian militants in the very region the peacekeeping forces are supposed to be monitoring. Moreover, these “peacekeeping” forces do everything possible to prevent Georgian refugees from return to their homes. The only reason why these forces are still referred to as “peacekeeping” is because Georgian government does not risk an open confrontation with Russia. Now, about Abkhazian independence. So called Abkhazian government is under direct control of Moscow. Abkhazian “president” travels to Moscow for “consultations” with Russian officials more often than any other president of Russian autonomous regions. During the last elections of Abkhazian president Russian officials practically campaigned for one of the presidential candidates. When that did not produce the desired result Russia went as far as threatening Abkhazia with military force and sealing the border until the president who suited Russia was elected. (Imagine president of the United States telling residents of California who to elect as a governor, and when Californians choose someone else telling them that a military force is going to be used unless someone who the president approves of is elected in the re-election). So by no stretch of imagination is Abkhazia an independent entity. In reality it is completely controlled by Russian to a much greater degree than most of autonomous regions inside Russia. De jure Abkhazia is a part of Georgia; de facto it is a part of Russia so I don’t understand why it is considered a separate country or a sovereign state – it is Georgian territory occupied by Russian military. Irakliy81 20:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be included. After all, Transnistria is included – including them, but omitting Abkhazia and South Ossetia seems like double standards and POV. If we mention these countries and give a special notice on the actual state of affairs, then that's fine; omitting them altogether is an endorsement of Georgian POV. --Latinus 20:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think that Transnistria should not be on the list please remove it. I'm just arguing that neither Abkhazia nor South Ossetia should be on the list because they are not de facto independent but are parts of Georgian territory occupied by Russia. Listing them as de facto sovereign states is endorsing Russian POV. Irakliy81 20:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Latinus, Transnistria was NOT included, as well as other uncontrolled territories untill that reverts. There was no double standards, untill that reverts. Read what I say above, what I'm doing is trying to get rid of the double standards, thats it! Pirveli 20:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Still though, removing them from the list is POV as it emphatically denies the possibility that they are not sovereign states, whereas including them with a footnote explaining exactly what's going on is neutral as it presents both sides of the story: nation X is considered sovereign by some people but not by others. The article as it currently stands does not endorse Russian POV as it includes a footnote. If you think this is not sufficient, then add another - just don't remove them to make the article reflect your POV: that they are not sovereign states. --Latinus 20:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not independent countries, they are parts of Georgia. This is a fact recognized by the international law. The argument "nation X is considered souvereign by

some people but by others" is rediculous :).

Latinus, including regions in the list just because some people think these regions are de facto independent is not a sound criterion. The criteria for de facto independence are listed at the top of the article they are: a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) government, and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. First of all I’m not happy with these criteria for they are vague. For example, lets consider Texas, it fits the definition, and I will tell you that there are groups of people who consider Texas to be independent from the United States; however, putting Texas on this list would be ridiculous. Now, let’s consider Abkhazia for example, a) Permanent population - more than 50% of Abkhazian population are refugees who cannot safely return to their homes, and would return as soon as someone would guarantee their safety. So, can you really say that Abkhazia has permanent population? b) Abkhazia does have defined territory, so no argument here. c) Government (by that I assume independent government): Abkhazian government (including the president) is directly controlled from Moscow. The last presidential elections (as I point out in one of my previous posts) show that very well. Would you say that, for example, France has independent government if German prime minister could appoint a French president? d) Capacity to enter into relations with other states -- this is a very vague term which I’m not even sure how to approach. No UN member would enter into relationship with Abkhazia that’s what is meant by recognition. So I’m left to wonder as to what is actually implied by the term “capacity”. All in all, Abkazia does not fit at least 2 out of 4 criteria, so why is it on this list again? Irakliy81 20:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Guys, that's seem to turn to a complete mess. The states are the areas recognised as states by other nations indeed. That's the rules of the international play. If one lists self-declared states, separatistic/seccecionist regions, the areas of a state captured by another state - this certainly brings one to a mess. Any rural community may declare it's an independent state, and what then, add it to a list? I understand there are mini-states like Vatican or Andorra, but their existence is coined by the surrounding nations and history, and their existence does not contradict with the regional interest balance. Please, please - if you wish to list somewhere in Wikipedia the areas like "Pridnestove", "N Cyprus Republic", or "South Ossetia", or "Bask Country", create something like a section "dispute and conflict areas of the World". Otherwise the entire idea of Wikipedia is down - 85.117.33.35 21:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Ridibo 21:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with the opinion presented above. Abkhazia and South Ossetia (by the way where is the country North Ossetia?) should not be on the list. Formally they are under georgian jurisdiction. De facto they are under Russian military protectorate. They themselves have many times pronounced the wish to be reattached to Russia and have all acquired Russian citizenship.

Generally I think Wikipedia should avoid such controversial issues. Any articulated position could potential seriouzly damage its reputation as an independent and objective source of information. Clearly having those territories on the list of independent states is an articulated position.

22:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)~

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are NOT the states but two provinces of Georgia occupied by Russian imperialists in 1992-93. In Abkhazia Russians even performed ethnic cleansing in 1993 removing or murdering 80 per-cent of its population.

Putting these two provinces as "states" is twisting the truth and supporting racism and aggression. Please check this for more information: http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/abkhazia.htm

decwindows::

Hello All! I found I am not alone who can not see any reason in including Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the 'List_of_sovereign_states'. These two phenomenons are anything, but 'sovereign states'; to describe them as states is a very doubtful thing by itself.

Since everyone agrees with no exceptions that de jure Abkhazia and South are parts of Georgia, I would like to concentrate the conversation on the phrase 'de facto'.

First of all both of these territories (actually - very important - only parts of them) 'de facto', or I would say 'in reality', are occupied territories.

About 65-70% of Abkhazia region is militarily occupied by Russian forces � I am not talking about troops formally described as 'peace keeping' � there other groups of the Russian armed forces, which are in every strategic point of the occupied 65-70%. About 10-20 % of the territory remains under Georgian control. The rest of Abkhazia is a zone of fighting for control.

From 70% to 85% of the population is driven from their homes under various pretexts. The remaining part had been made Russian citizens. They vote in the Russian elections � they are (at least were, up to the most recent times) assigned to the Kolomensky voting district. They receive salaries and pensions from the Russian Federation.

The individuals which are sometimes described as 'local authorities' or 'officials de facto' are all Russian citizens � their families live in Russia (mostly in Moscow), they live themselves much of the time in Russia too, some visit Abkhazia only once a year at the most. The individuals which are sometimes described as �local military authorities and such� are all Russian citizens too and are officially in the Russian military service � even if it is said, they are in 'organized reseve' or something like this.

And very important � all 'local authorities' always insist that they are de facto a part of the Russian Federation and want to become a part of the Russian Federation de jure.

The official currency is the Russian rouble, all 'local authorities' always insist that they are not going to create their own financial system.

The similar situation is with the so-called South Ossetia � only in this case most of the territory is under Georgian control.

How can one describe militarily occupied territories as sovereign states � you could list then some Reichskommissariat Ostland in your 'List_of_sovereign_states'!? Especially if the territories are not only occupied, but also their 'authorities' insist that they are de facto a part of some real sovereign state and want to become a part of this state de jure etc etc etc. It is even very hard to call them 'separatists' , if possible at all.

So as a resume: it does not make any sense to list some militarily occupied patches of some territories, which claim that they are de facto a part of the occupying state - in the 'List_of_sovereign_states'.

If it does make sense for someone, I think it is should be considered then to include Reichskommissariat Ostland in 'List_of_sovereign_states' too � it has not much less 'rights', than Abkhazia or 'South Ossetia'.

But still I hope the common - I would say sound - sense is going to prevail. And responsibility!

Would I be assuming bad faith if I said I suspected sockpuppetry? I'm sorry guys, but if you look at footnote 1, you will see that this list includes de facto states. The question here is whether Abkhazia and South Ossetia are de facto states, and the answer is yes, so they can be included. Omitting them would be ruling out the possibility that they are not sovereign states whereas including them but noting the exact situation (that their statehood is disputed) and letting the reader make up his own mind is the most neutral thing we can do. Georgian POV does not override WP:NPOV. --Latinus 22:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The last presidential elections are not a good example to show that Russia controls Abkhazia. Russia supported the incumbant prime minister. Guess what, the oposition candidate won. You site that all Abkhazians have Russian passports. Sure they have, since they are isolated internationally they can't use Abkhazian documents to move around. You claim that these states' only goal is to eventually join Russia. This may be true for South-Ossetia, but the fact that this is a goal shows that it's not the current situation. Also, Abkhazia has only aspired 'association', while remaining independant, my guess is this would be that this would be something like San Marino, Vatican City, Monaco visa vi Italy and France. Sure, Abkhazia would be dependant on Russia, but so is the Vatican and so is San Marino. You claim that it would be an outrage to see Abkhazia side by side with the US, but isn;t it also really strange to see the Vatican in one list with the US? Is the Vatican really independant, de facto? Thing is, states are not the same and this is an interdependant world we live in, no country can survive on its own. So that's not relevant. What's relevant is that Georgia has no de facto control over these territories, their respective governments have, and whatever Russia's policy, it does not claim to rule these territories, therefore they are de facto independant, as much as Afghanistan is currently independant. And Abkhazia is not just like andy john doe or Shan secessionist group declaring independance, it is the direct continuation of a state that was previously part of the Soviet Union, it has got institutional continuity.

decwindows::

You are saying "it [Georgia] does not claim to rule these territories, therefore they are de facto independant". First of all, yes georgia does not claim to rule these territories � but, a) Geogia�s does not have control only over a part of the mentioned territories and what is more important "georgia does not claim to rule these territories" does not mean the territory rules itself. And if, even not being ruled by Georgia, ruled by Russia � it means it (Ablhazia) is not a "sovereign state".

"Russia supported the incumbant prime minister. Guess what, the oposition candidate won."

Oh, really!? In reality there are several groups in Russia who fight for property in Russia and in so-called unrecognized states. One group supported one "candidate" and the other � the one who "won". So the "elections" are an example of exactly contrary situation that you related us. Both the the Russia General Prosecutor�s mate Kolesnikov and the Russian parliament vice-speaker Baburin are Russian authorities. The fact that "Baburin�s" candidate won over Kolesnikov�s candidate does not say Abkhazia is a sovereign state.

"it is the direct continuation of a state that was previously part of the Soviet Union"

- It was a part of Soviet Georgia, which indeed was a part of USSR (since 1936 � since 1922 to 1936 it was a part of Transcaucasus Soviet Federate Socialistic Republic, which was a part of USSR). And it is not a question who was who and what was what - the question is which territory has "features" that are sufficient and relevant enough to present any grounds for naming it a "sovereign state".

There are no grounds to describe Abkhazia as "sovereign state" or even a secessionist territory. I asked everyone about Reichskommissariat Ostland or asking now Reichskommissariat Ukraine (temporary names Natzies gave to some occupied parts of USSR) - what are the differences between them and nowadays Abkhazia?

Or it would be interesting to hear your definition of "sovereign state".

I removed Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria from the list since they simply do not possess all the qualifications stipulated by Montevideo Convention. In particular, unlike Taiwan, they clearly lack part d) of the definition: "capacity to enter into relations with the other states." (PaC 03:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

That's your POV - it's not our job to interpret the Mindevideo Convention. That's for international (and sometimed national) courts and tribunals. We present the facts (that their statehood is disputed) and let the reader make up his own mind - see WP:NPOV. This list includes unrecognised states as per footnote 1 and until a consensus is formed stating otherwise, that is the way it is going to stay. BTW you've been reported for suspected sockpuppetry, block evasion and general abuse of editing privileges. --Latinus 08:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually believe that placing these entities in the list of undisputed states is a POV. The readers can make up their mind by following the link to the list of unrecognized countries. Moreover I disagree that it is not our place to interpret the definition. This is precisely what the definitions are for! I have followed your links and here's what I've found: "...an article can and should always begin with a good definition." (see WP:WINAD) And here's what the article Definition says a good definition should be: "A definition aims to describe or delimit the meaning of some term (a word or a phrase) by giving a statement of essential properties or distinguishing characteristics of the concept, entity, or kind of entity, denoted by that term." That means that we should be reasonably able to determine from the beginning of the article definition what to include and what to not include in the list. If you think that the definition that we have here is not clear enough (and you certainly do if you think it should be deciphered in courts), then may be you should come up with another definition? The guidelines clearly suggest that we should have an interpretable and unambiguous definition, don't you agree? Sorry for not "talking shortly", but I do hope you'll read this. (PaC 10:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Hmm, so in practical terms, what are you suggesting? Remove all totally unrecognised states? I don't know what everyone else will say. How about a "special" section, not listing, but linking to list of unrecognized countries, or a disambiguation notice saying other de facto but unrecognised states are listed at list of unrecognized countries? --Latinus 12:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Latinus, personally I find it a best solution to make a separate list of "unrecognized countries" with the separatist regions included, and to post a link to that list on the main page. Pirveli 13:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Latinus, I think we already have something like what you are saying, don't we?

Frankly I would prefer if we used something different then Montevideo convention as a basis for the definition. It seems like (I am just guessing here) it was invented do be ambiguous for a purpose, so that the world powers can interpret it the way they want. If this was really the case than it is really a shame that Wikipedia is following this path. However, this seems to be too big a change (unless somebody is brave enough) and plus I have no alternative definition to propose at this point. (PaC 17:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

decwindows::

I think it too (alongside with Pirveli) that the best way is to create a separate list of "unrecognized countries" or something like this with probably subdivisions: "unrecognized countries proper" and "entities propagandized as states or states like structures" - for both modern ones: like Abkhazia and Northern Cyprus; and for those from the past: like South Lebanon and Reichskommissariat Ostland with Reichskommissariat Ukraine. Otherwise wikipedia.org is going to become an advertising board of machtpolitik and aggression propaganda.

Khoikhoi, why are you reverting the article again without explaining your changes on the talk page? And what vote are you talking about? Irakliy81 00:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As there's no consensus on this, I think we should have a vote. --Khoikhoi 00:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I’d rather we come to a consensus. I’m sure if we all present valid arguments and consider the arguments of the opponents it will not be difficult to do. Irakliy81 00:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My arguments in this are quite simple:

Neither Abkhazia nor South Ossetia should be in this list simply because they don’t fit the criteria defined in the beginning of the article.

For Abhazia:

It is atrocious to say that Abkhazia has permanent population when more than 50% of its population was forcefully expelled from their homes.
- You're refering to the expulsion of ethnic Georgians from Abkhazia, right? What remains are ethnic Abkhazians, Russians, Armenians, etc., so despite the Georgians are gone, it does not mean that it is not a fully-functioning country.

Not only Georgians. The prewar population of Abkhazia was more than 500,000 people; the current population is barely over 150,000. Along with Georgians Armenians, Greeks, Russians, and Abkhazians themselves left Abkhazia. The refuges are prevented from returning to their homes by Russian “peacekeeping” forces. Taking this into account you can’t seriously say that current Abhkazia has “permanent population” (one of the requirements of de facto independence).

I disagree. You just said that the poplulation is 150,000. The ones that never left -- there's your permanent population. It's not like Abkhazia was totally evacuated.

<from decwindows>"It's not like Abkhazia was totally evacuated." - I would say the evacuation is under way - people are moving out everyday. And completely new (outsiders) persons are moving in. There had been a program to move some of the population from The Russia northmost territories set out, which consists of several steps, one is to move part of evacuees to Abkhazia. And there is a program in Russia under which retired army officers will receive places to live in (apartments, cottages etc) in several places including Abkhazia. The first progam is to begin soon and the second one has just begun. So hardly the permanent population criterion has much to do with Abkhazia.<from decwindows>

Hey decwindows. You know you can sign your name like this: --~~~~. But relating to this page, why would people be evacuated from Abkhazia? I thought the ethnic clensing was over. Just curious, do you live in Abkhazia? --Khoikhoi 04:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The current Abkhazian regime controls about 80% of Abkhazia the rest is under control of Georgian authorities.
- So what? Just because its borders are not well-defined, does not mean that it's not a sovereign state. The borders between Saudi Arabia and Yeman and Oman were not defined for years, but all of them are sovereign nations.

Just because the borders are not well defined you can not call that region Abkhazia! Why should you be so selective and call Abkhazia the 80% of the territory controlled by pro-Russian regime and ignore the 20% of the territory controlled by the legitimate government (This is even more relevant to South Ossetia)? If you must, call it something else (Apsny or Sokhumi Region for example).

There's your problem right there. You think that the "legitimate government" is Georgia, which it isn't. The Abkhaz run their own government, despite the fact that a little less than a quarter of their country being controlled by Georgia.

<from decwindows>"The Abkhaz run their own government" - what is by you to run? Reichskommissariat Ostland had numerous officials - but who created them, what did it matter that Minsk fo example has an "elected" mayor? The most impotant question: "Who actually controlled the territory?" - the answer is clear. Would you say the people of Reichskommissariat Ostland ran their own government? "You think that the "legitimate government" is Georgia, which it isn't." - The thing is it is legitimate - if it is really interesting for you, ask the UN or the Foreign Ministry of any real sovereign state of the real, not imaginary, world". <from decwindows>

(This is the most important argument) The government of Abkhazia is completely dependant on Russian officials. I can list dozens of regions of the world (i.e. Texas in the United States, or event Chechnya in Russia) that have a greater degree of independence than Abkhazian “government”.
- There are countless countries in Africa that are also equally dependent on European and other wealthy countries for foreign aid. All of them are listed in this article.

You are mixing up two things here. The list consists of de juer and de facto independent states. The African countries listed here are de jure independent. If they were not I would not object their removal. Abkhazia is not de jure independent! Thus for it to be on the list it MUST be de facto independent (something that de jure independent countries can bypass). Moreover, there is a big difference in being economically dependent (foreign aid etc) and being politically dependent (not being able to elect you president and have your ministers appointed by another state).

Ok, how about this? Northern Cyprus is as dependent as Abkhazia, but it's still on the list. Northern Cyprus won't be able to exist without Turkey. Despite Abkhazia's help from Russia, you cannot deny that Abkhazia is a de facto independent country, right? This is what almost every source says, and it deserves to be listed on this article.

<from decwindows>"Northern Cyprus is as dependent as Abkhazia, but it's still on the list." - so you are not as ignorant as you pretend. If you consider Northern Cyprus "a de facto independent state" - then actually one just must stop argueing and just weep or laugh. Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia etc should not be called "a de facto independent states" "Despite Abkhazia's help from Russia, you cannot deny that Abkhazia is a de facto independent country, right?" - is this you argument!? You just "cannot deny that"!? Well I can - I and presented points why (see above). "This is what almost every source says" - Do your sourses say Northern Cyprus is "a de facto independent state" and Reichskommissariat Ukraine was "a de facto independent state"? <from decwindows>

The current Abkhazian regimen stated many times that they want to be a part of Russia rather than be an independent state. The currency in Abkhazia is Russian ruble, Russian laws have been adopted, most of the Abkhazians have Russian citizenship, the list goes on and on.
- Despite what they want, their current status is "de facto independent", which is true. The things that you mentioned is just Russian influence, it does not mean Russia has complete power over Abkhazia.

The point here is that how can an entity be sovereign when it doesn’t have its own government, its own laws, its own currency and is not able to lead any of independent relations with other entities?

You're making it sound like it's part of Russia, which it isn't. It's current status is a de facto independent country - that's a fact, as I said before. Although it is adopting these things it is still not part of Russia.

<from decwindows>"it is still not part of Russia" - well more "yes", than "no" - but still it does not mean it is a "de facto independent" state. It is a part of Georgia occupied by Russia. "It's current status is a de facto independent country - that's a fact" - hardly it is more, than just your personal POV. Facts (see above) tell something completely different. <from decwindows>

Also, will you please stop reverting until the dispute is over? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

For South Ossetia:

The Ossetian authorities control only about 40% of former South Ossetia. There is no well defined territory of “South Ossetia”.
- (Same as answer to previous section)
(This is the most important argument) The government of South Ossetia is completely controlled by Russia. Many Ossetian ministers (i.e. minister of defense) are on active military duty with Russian army and are directly appointed from Moscow. Again, the level of independence of South Ossetia is less than neighboring Chechnya or even Kabardino-Balkaria (yet we don’t see these regions appear on this list).
- (Same as answer to previous section)
The current Ossetian regime has stated many times that they want to be a part of Russia. The currency on the territory of South Ossetia controlled by Ossetian authorites is Russian ruble, most of Ossetians have Russian citizenship, Russian law base has been adopted, Ossetian president refuses to have any talks with Georgian authorities w/o Russian intermediation.
- (Same as previous section)

I hope you will be able to counter every one of my arguments with solid arguments of your own. Until then I will restore the previous state of the article. Irakliy81 01:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC) TestAvtoK 03:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are some facts about Abkhazia and South Ossetia. About 60% of population of the Abkhazia was driven away from their homes. There is a heavy Russian military presence in the region. So-called NIS peacekeepers consisting 100% of Russians and military base in bombora near the town Gudauta (this base is supposed to be closed before 2002 in accordance of 1999 Istanbul agreement, but remains functional). Russia gave to the remaining part of population Russian citizenship. They receive their wages from Russia and fiscal policy under Russian control. Georgia still controls 15% of the territory. Same situation with South Ossetia. Difference is that Georgia controls most of its territory. In so called South Ossetian government most positions are filled by Russian military officers and they not even bother themselves to be formally discharged from Russian governmental institutions. Therefore, as I see some of you people not interested what’s is going on in Abkhazia and South Ossetia (in case of Abkhazia ethnic cleansing, atrocities and apartheid of remaining Georgian population) as far as they meet formal criteria of sovereign states. However, as you can see they do not. These are Georgian territories occupied by Russians and only criteria they meet are “Puppet States’. AvtoK 03:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you for your information. Yet we have another user with the Georgian POV, no offense. But don't they have any computers in Abkhazia? It's just that I'd like to hear more from people with the Abkhazian/Russian POV, to see what they have to say.

About your comments AvtoK, where did you get your data? The other user Irakliy81, says that 20% of Abkhazia is controlled by Georgia as opposed to 15%.

May I ask everyone with the Georgian POV something? Honestly, why do you not want Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be independent? Shouldn't all ethnic groups have the right to rule themselves? Just some thoughts of mine. --Khoikhoi 04:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask everyone to not answer Khoikhoi's question here. This will only cloud the issue and is irrelevant to this discussion. If you do want to discuss it with Khoikhoi (and this I think can go on forever) may be you should do this at Khoikhoi's talk page? (PaC 04:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

BTW, Khoikhoi, if you are interested in Russian POV on the subject, look at Russian version of this very same page. Click at Русский to the left of the article. You can see that it separates the unrecognized states in a separate category. Just click on the 3d link in the Contents. (PaC 04:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Ok, thanks. I'll check it out. You know, I can archive the old discussion on this talk page if you want. Just let me know what you would like to be archived. --Khoikhoi 04:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So wait, should we have this article be like the Russian one? Would that end the dispute? --Khoikhoi 04:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If nobody objects, this may remove many problems. Basically stripping off all the criteria for inclusion and spliting the list in recognized sovereign states, dependent territories, unrecognized states, and territories with unclear status?

Khoikhou, reason why we are opposing Abkhaz and south Ossetian Independence is simple. This matter has to be decided not by 19% of population. What about of Georgian population. Do they have rights or not? All major cities of Abkhazia such as Sukhumi, Gagra, Ochamchire, Gali today are almost empty. Villages are burn down, properties seized. What about these people who lived there? How you can even ask such a question. Georgians were lived there for millennia’s. Therefore, I want to ask you. Can ethnic cleansing and atrocities gave the right for independences? With regard of South Ossetia .In this region there is a city of Tskhinvali with the population of ~10-15000 people surrounded with villages and population of these villages still loyal to Georgia. What we have to do with them? Relocate to satisfy appetites of Russian neoimperialist and bunch of corrupted Ossetian officials?--AvtoK 04:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for your reply. But you said, "can ethnic cleansing and atrocities give the right for independences?". Unfortunately, for many countries it has. Ever heard about how Bangladesh was born? How about all the other countries that emerged as a result of civil wars? My country, the USA spawned from violence with the British, but we won and now look at us. I don't mean to be a nationalist or anything, I'm just staying that - unfortunate but true, a great deal of countries start because of war as opposed to peace. --Khoikhoi 05:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I do not think this is the point here. If we are arguing about whether to include somth in the list it has nothing to do with the rights of "ethnic groups to rule themselves". (BTW, Khoikhoi how can you talk about Georgian POV when the reason for your opposition is such a blatant POV of your own? Let's call it allEthnicGroupsHaveRightToGovernThemselves POV) (PaC 05:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Fine call it whatever you want to call it. I promise to stay on topic from now on. --Khoikhoi 05:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The debate over whether these border cases qualify as states can go on forever without reaching consensus. Since some people consider them to be states and others do not, either simply including or simply excluding them is not npov. I propose that we should improve the footnotes instead: if they are to be included here, we should have a few sentences long footnote for each "de facto state" explaining how they both do and do not meet the criteria. --Jiang 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we've come up with something along the lines of having it look more like the the Russian article. --Khoikhoi 05:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As discussed before at Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Archive_2#This_article_is_confusing_to_read.2Fdigest_-_formatting_must_be_improved, such a list is unworkable and pov because it overemphasizes international recognition and separates states into neat categories when these clear cut categories do not really exist. A system of footnotes, with comments on each individual case, is much more accessible, factual, and neutral.--Jiang 05:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

OK let's try some constructive suggestions. Khoikhoi, some of the arguments you presented to Irakliy81 work more towards excluding the recognized states than for including the unrecognized ones. I do not think we should start trying to check the applicability of Montevideo convention's definition to recognized states. This was already done by all other countries - hence the recognition. I haven't seen a solid argument for the inclusion of Abkhazia, South Ossetia or Transnistria. They clearly do not fit the definition, especially part d). From what I've seen Taiwan does seem to qualify to some extent, but not Abkh., S.O. or Transn. Neither do Nagorno-Karabakh and Northern Cyprus as far as I can tell, but I am less familiar with these ones. Know nothing about Somaliland. IMO Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria are rather territories occupied by Russia, as Nagorno-Karabakh is occupied by Armenia, and Northern Cyprus by Turkey. (PaC 05:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Jiang I do not think the system of notes is more neutral. Most of the Georgians seem to object of having Abkhazia at the top of the list, notes or not.

Anyway, here's what I propose:

Remove the 6 unrecognized states in the last Khoikhoi's version altogether and provide the link to the list of unrecognized countries. I think at least Latinus and Jiang did not argue with that.
Leave Taiwan with an explicit note right next to it explaining its special status.
Remove "including both de jure and de facto independent states" from the first sentence of the article, as it only creates confusion. We already have a definition (although I'd rather change it), provided by Montevideo convention. The de facto independece- whatever it means is not a part of this definition.
Remove the links to note 1 - it is more confusing than helpful.
The link to unrecognized countries should be placed in the last paragraph of the Criteria for Inclusion. Something like "Not listed below are unrecognized countries and state-like entities, various disputed territories ..."

What do you think?(PaC 05:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

I don't know. It doesn't seem like you made a compromise, but just stated your version of the article, with minor differences. Why can't we have it more like the Russian article, with different sections for the different types of countries? In contrast to your statement, I see no strong argument for their removal. --Khoikhoi 05:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Just saw Jiang's new comment. Perhaps we could do something with the footnotes. --Khoikhoi 05:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about this: we "sort of" include Abkhazia and South Ossetia - we could have something like "strongly disputed" by the names. --05:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

We already had footnotes. This does not look as compromise either. As I already wrote to Jiang most of the Georgians seem to object to having Abkhazia at the top of the list, footnotes or not. (PaC 05:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Plus I wasn't really going for the compromise in my suggestions above. I was going for an argumented version that majority may agree on. For example, I am arguing that the contested pseudo-states do no fit part d) of the definition (unlike Taiwan). Why do you think they do?(PaC 06:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

My point being to expand the footnotes. Just because Georgians object to listing Abkhazia doesnt mean not listing it is neutral. That is not how npov is handled. There is still the argument that Abkhazia is a state. Would Georgians still object if all the arguments on how Abkhazia is not a state is presented on the same page? --Jiang 08:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think I brought my point across correctly. It is not the matter of what the Georgians or Taiwanese would object to or not. I do not believe we should be negotiating the price for truth here. If we present all the arguments on how Abkhazia is not a state, then why list it in the first place?! (PaC 17:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

because there are also arguments on why Abkhazia does meet the critiera. NPOV means presenting both views.--Jiang 18:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen any strong arguments for this from you, or anybody else. Placing valid arguments along with non-valid arguments is not NPOV. It's nonsense.(PaC 23:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a debating forum. Our purpose is not to arrive at the truth. Our purpose is to accurately represent all sides of the argument. As long as an argument is made by a significant amount of people, we have to represent it, no matter how flawed the argument. --Jiang 00:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm, what happened to NPOV? You almost suggest that if enough people push their POV it should be also presented in Wikipedia. Plus the issue is not which arguments to present, but whether to place these countries in the list or not. We are not suggesting to remove any factual information. It is you who insist in presenting it in a very specific way, even though the majority is suggesting the compromise (PaC 02:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Yes, that is what I mean. Part of NPOV is "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." I am suggesting that we add information on why they should AND shouldnt be included, rather than skipping the issue entirely.

Wikipedia does not work through majority rule or compromise. It works through consenus.--Jiang 06:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You are clouding the issue here. I agree that all significant povs should be presented. What we seem to disagree is where in the article this should be done. I think listing the contraversial state in the "List of sovereign states" it is not netral (footnote or not). By placing them in a seperate list with the arguments about why they can or can't be considered sovereign states we represent a NPOV with all significant POVs present. I do not understand why you can't agree on that.

Let's take the discussion to the bottom of the page. It is getting hard to follow. I'll repost this last comment there. (PaC 07:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Oh yes and I still haven't heard your arguments for why they should be listed at all. You are just saying they should be, without explaining why (PaC 02:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

I dont have argument on why they should be listed. I am only suggesting a means by which they can be listed according to the NPOV policy--Jiang 06:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I fail to understand you. You are saying that you can not argue why they should be listed and yet you think they should be listed anyways? I can not find anything in WP:NPOV that supports you on that. (PaC 07:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

As for using the Russian version... after some thought i do not think it is a good idea. It has no definitions, and therefore it would be impossible for someone to argue for or against inclusion of states in various lists. For example the issue of Taiwan becomes unsupported from any pov. (PaC 06:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Ok how about this: we have a small section at the very end of the article titled, "de-facto states" or something along the lines of that. We then say "it could be argued...but this is disputed...etc." --Khoikhoi 06:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean that de-facto states will not be listed with the others but only listed in the separate section? (PaC 07:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Yes. I think it's a good idea, either that or we could put the controversial "de facto" states in separate section. --Khoikhoi 07:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As stated earlier, that is unworkable.--Jiang 08:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see why this is unworkable.Moving de-facto states in a separate section seems to be the middle ground that most people find acceptable. It seems that only Jiang's POV keeps us from doing so. Jiang's argument that somebody could not find Taiwan for a long time or whatever she/he was looking for is not serious. After all if she/he were looking for Kosovo or Kurdistan, she would not be able to find it in this list at all. If we provide short and clear Contents box at the top with a link to de-facto states section (like they have in russian section) it will be pretty workable. In fact one can always argue the other way around: if someone were specifically looking for de-facto states it will be much easier for her to find them grouped in a separate section than if they were scattered throughout the list. (PaC 17:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

The reasons why such a list is unworkable are simple. Please refer to archive 2. First, it places too much emphasis and importance on the existence of diplomatic relations. Second, separating the states here into tiers on the basis of diplomatic recognition creates a hierarchy that plainly suggest POV. Trying to "specifically look for de-facto states" is a non-issue: if someone wants this list, they can just go to list of unrecognized states.

I fail to see how separating into two lists is a POV. It is a separation based on factual difference. You are probably joking? In fact the opposite can not be argued by any unbiased person: placing the unrecognized states in the list is an obvious POV(PaC 23:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

What do we do about Taiwan? North Korea? Israel? Is it recognized or not? Why is recognition so important in the first place? And what about states that exist on paper but dont exercise sovereignty? Somalia? Western Sahara? --Jiang 00:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that we should not question UN members. As for Taiwan, I think you presented enough arguments that it fits the definition of sovereign states and unless someone argues otherwise, it should be included in the list with the comments explaining its special situation. (PaC 02:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Kosovo and Kurdistan are definitely not states. They belong at most in the footnotes. I don't see how they are relevant to creating a new section--Jiang 18:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so now you so sure about it and without any valid argument again? Care to explain what the difference is between them and Abkh, S.O., and Transinstria? Let me help - they are not occupied by Russian troops?(PaC 23:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

The criteria are clearly listed on the page. No one argues that Kosovo or Kurdistan are currently states, and no authority exists to assume the duties of a sovereign state government. --Jiang 00:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I still would like to hear from you the difference between Abkhazia and Kosovo, that allows the former to be included and the latter excluded. It shouldn't be a problem for you, since you are so sure about this. (PaC 02:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

I dont have a personal opinion on these conflicts. We need to see if there is a sizable faction arguing a that either of these are already a state (and not merely should be states).--Jiang 06:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it strange that you go from "Kosovo and Kurdistan are definitely not states" to "I dont have a personal opinion on these conflicts" within a matter of hours? (PaC 07:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

There IS a sizeable fraction believing that neither Abkhazia, nor "South Ossetia", nor Northern Cyprus can be described as "de facto independent states" and "states" at all. Not just believing, but giving facts, information, which show Abkhazia, "South Ossetia", Northern Cyprus are just facades for Russian and Turkish military occupation - as was South Lebanon a facade for Israel occupation of Lebanon�s territory and as were local "authorities" in Reichskommissariat Ostland just a façade for Nazi German occupation of USSR territory. I would say more � most of people in this discussion see no reason in including Abkhazia, nor "South Ossetia", nor Northern Cyprus in "de facto independent states" category or list - just look at the postings.

On the other hand I do not think it is reasonable to make a decision (when we talk of an encyclopaedia and information which may give someone the idea what is really going on) - speaking in terms like "sizeable fraction" or "voting" - if there will be a sizeable fraction believing H2SO4 is a metal � will you put H2SO4 in metals list or if majority will vote for the same? I hope you will not.

So I would like to propose to make it, for example, in a kind of "mechanic" way - there is a table of "features" which "lets" a territory to be called a state ("de facto independent state", for example) - you fill the table cells with data, then count the result. If you do not think there is a widely accepted (or accepted by common sense) table of "features" - there are certainly existing moments which clearly show what is what - if there is no more or less stable territory, almost no permanent population, a territory is militarily occupied by an army of some neighbouring (or not neighbouring � does not matter) state, whole economical, political, security etc situation controlled by the army and special services of some neighbouring (or not neighbouring - does not matter) state - then where is this "de facto independent state". Declarations of some very limited in numbers individuals are not arguments. You can make an experiment - declare with your friends independence of your neighbourhood sports yard - then think how does it look like for a neutral observer (I am not talking about an interested one!). Of course situation in conflict zones is no fun - but still.

"De facto independent state" is a state which is not internationally recognized, the problem of Abkhazia, "South Ossetia", Northern Cyprus is not just that they are unrecognized - they are occupied territories where the occupying force found it convenient to have a facade for the occupation which can give it (the force) more legitimacy - it is not new in human history.

My proposal - there has to be a special list for territories like Abkhazia, "South Ossetia", Northern Cyprus and the like. There can be no compromise on including them into "de facto independent states" list - to make a compromise on this means to make a political statement or take a politically motivated position, not a scientific description or classification. I need about a week to collect opinions and proposals on how to call this list - the name should be politically neutral, descriptive and correct (not in terms of political declarations, but in terms of what is really going on).

What do you think?

I would like to know if anybody, besides Jiang objects to moving the controversial de-facto states in a separate section? Let's consider it a pre-vote, just to find out where everyone stands on this. (PaC 18:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

discussion is not over yetJiang 18:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

< Both Abkhazia and "South Ossetia" do not fit the category or phrase "de facto independent state">

To my personal POV (summary) - if we talk of POVs so much here:

There are certain criteria which allow to call a country "an independent state" - de facto or de jure. And the lack of thereof leads to finding for its (a country) status another description.

1.Both Abkhazia and "South Ossetia" do not have defined territories - it is not just like they have no internationally recognized territories and borders. The reality is that their territories - actually zones of Russian military occupation - are sometimes shrinking, sometimes swelling - at times every day. Since there are Georgian guerilla movement (a couple of years ago the Georgian government demanded the organized guerilla groups to stop their activities - so by now there are only unorganized bunches of people operating - but still) - the zone of the Russian occupation is not stable, it is being changed. So even if someone would insist that the Russian occupation zone must inevitably be called the territory of "de facto independent state of Abkhazia" - even then it is anything, but stable, it is not permanent, it is literally, practically undefined - no one can say it starts here and ends there, because tomorrow there will be a military operation which will change the way the situation was yesterday and on the day after tomorrow other operation will change it in the opposite way - the reality is like this since 1993. Practically no big or medium size military operations, which could be of interest for major media agencies, but "small" fighting everyday. Both of these zones of Russian occupation are mostly not contiguous. "South Ossetia", for example, is a virtual chessboard - zone of the Georgian control and zone of the Russian control are intermixed.

2.Abkhazia has almost no permanent population - it is not just from 70 to 85% of the population is displaced under various pretexts. The remaining locals are moving out everyday. And slowly, but completely new (outsiders) persons are moving in. There are two state programs in Russia both of which aim to move and settle considerable amount of people to Abkhazia. One of the program has already begun - retired army and FSB (the new name of the KGB) officers are going to receive their apartments and cottages in several places - including Abkhazia. And some of them already moved in. And that is not all - the displaced persons infiltrate whenever and wherever they can, back - then some return to the unoccupied parts of Georgia, some stay, making the zone of the Georgian control wider, some are pushed out by the Russian forces etc etc etc.

3.Similar thing is with "South Ossetia" where the situation is less outrageus in many respects though.

6. The situation in the Russia occupied zone controlled by the Russian army and FSB-KGB - some fictitious "local authorities" do exist, but, for example, when Nazi Germany occupied western part of the USSR, the occupation zone had been divided into several entities - one of them was Reichskommissariat Ostland. Some "local authorities" existed there too, even "elections" were held - but should one explain who actually controlled the situation and for what reason Nazis made the step and created these "local authorities"?

One can say more than said above. But what is told by far is enough to be more reasonable - neither Abkhazia, nor "South Ossetia" are not "de facto independent states", they can not be described in terms state, statehood at all. These are occupied territories as existed before in human history and unfortunately exists now. "Their" "claims for independence" exist only when someone of those who has been let to talk speaks to Western journalists. You should watch Russian TV channels news programs in Russia (in Russian) - and there would not have been long discussions here in wikipedia.org. Maybe for someone it is romantic - tiny ethnic group fighting for independence and he (or she) can not help it but to have his (her) consciousness manipulated by those who propel these moods minding their own interests. But I call on you to be reasonable and responsible - this is no computer game to have favours towards some characters and disgust towards the others. This is the real life - the biggest online encyclopaedia visited by millions of surfers - all speculations about the "status" of Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus etc etc etc are politics, the nature of any encyclopaedia supposes to try to be academic, concentrating on facts not on declarations and favours.

I would like to know if anybody, besides Jiang objects to moving the controversial de-facto states in a separate section? Let's consider it a pre-vote, just to find out where everyone stands on this. (PaC 18:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

In my opinionthe question is simple, if the Foreign Ministry of my country does not list a particular entiry in its list of states, this is not a state. --Bete 08:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Krauklis: Abkhazia and "South Ossetia" are NOT the states. They are Russian-occupied territories with small groups of gagngsters and terrorists acting as pro-Russian puppet "governments". Manchukuo was also prtending to be a "state" during WW2.

Separate list for disputed territories

Jiang, I agree that all significant povs should be presented. What we seem to disagree is where in the article this should be done. I think listing the contraversial state in the "List of sovereign states" it is not netral (footnote or not). By placing them in a seperate list with the arguments about why they can or can't be considered sovereign states we represent a NPOV with all significant POVs present. I do not understand why you can't agree on that.(PaC 07:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

There IS a sizeable fraction believing that neither Abkhazia, nor "South Ossetia", nor Northern Cyprus can be described as "de facto independent states" and "states" at all. Not just believing, but giving facts, information, which show Abkhazia, "South Ossetia", Northern Cyprus are just facades for Russian and Turkish military occupation - as was South Lebanon a facade for Israel occupation of Lebanon�s territory and as were local "authorities" in Reichskommissariat Ostland just a façade for Nazi German occupation of USSR territory. I would say more � most of people in this discussion see no reason in including Abkhazia, nor "South Ossetia", nor Northern Cyprus in "de facto independent states" category or list - just look at the postings.

On the other hand I do not think it is reasonable to make a decision (when we talk of an encyclopaedia and information which may give someone the idea what is really going on) - speaking in terms like "sizeable fraction" or "voting" - if there will be a sizeable fraction believing H2SO4 is a metal � will you put H2SO4 in metals list or if majority will vote for the same? I hope you will not.

So I would like to propose to make it, for example, in a kind of "mechanic" way - there is a table of "features" which "lets" a territory to be called a state ("de facto independent state", for example) - you fill the table cells with data, then count the result. If you do not think there is a widely accepted (or accepted by common sense) table of "features" - there are certainly existing moments which clearly show what is what - if there is no more or less stable territory, almost no permanent population, a territory is militarily occupied by an army of some neighbouring (or not neighbouring � does not matter) state, whole economical, political, security etc situation controlled by the army and special services of some neighbouring (or not neighbouring - does not matter) state - then where is this "de facto independent state". Declarations of some very limited in numbers individuals are not arguments. You can make an experiment - declare with your friends independence of your neighbourhood sports yard - then think how does it look like for a neutral observer (I am not talking about an interested one!). Of course situation in conflict zones is no fun - but still.

"De facto independent state" is a state which is not internationally recognized, the problem of Abkhazia, "South Ossetia", Northern Cyprus is not just that they are unrecognized - they are occupied territories where the occupying force found it convenient to have a facade for the occupation which can give it (the force) more legitimacy - it is not new in human history.

My proposal - there has to be a special list for territories like Abkhazia, "South Ossetia", Northern Cyprus and the like. There can be no compromise on including them into "de facto independent states" list - to make a compromise on this means to make a political statement or take a politically motivated position, not a scientific description or classification. I need about a week to collect opinions and proposals on how to call this list - the name should be politically neutral, descriptive and correct (not in terms of political declarations, but in terms of what is really going on).

What do you think?

I agree with Decwindows (BTW if you are a registered editor you can sign by typing four tildes (~~~~)). There should be a separate list for these territories. I think the term "disputed territories" is the most neutral. How about a statement along the lines "These geopolitical entities are considered to be de-facto independent states by some and occupied territories by others"? (PaC 09:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Also I am splitting this discussion, starting part II of it - I think it was getting too long and cumbersome. I hope I am not violating any WP rules. (PaC 09:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

I am renaming this topic Separate list for disputed territories (PaC 10:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Niue and the Cook Islands

Would the two territory be qualified to be included for fulfilling the definition of sovereign state to a certain degree? According to a map from the UN Decolonisation Committee (courtesy User:QuartierLatin1968 for providing the link at talk:list of countries by area ) the two are even eligible for UN memberships, comparable, to some extent, the case of Switzerland before 2000. — Insta ntnood 18:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Free association Their interests are represented by New Zealand. -Justin (koavf), talk 18:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Currently yes, but they're eligible for UN membership, and on the map there's a separate category for them. New Zealand conducts their diplomatic relations on their behalf after consultations, and the Cook Islands is already keeping diplomatic relations on its own with some other sovereign states. — Insta ntnood 18:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Granted But Hong Kong sometimes enters into relations with states, but there is no dispute that it is a dependency of the PRC. They are as close as a region can be to actual indpendence, but they aren't sovereign. -Justin (koavf), talk 18:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of debate whether Hong Kong and Macau are sovereign states. They simply aren't. That's not the case for the Cook Islands and Niue, and Hong Kong and Macau are irrelevant to the discussion here nor to the list of sovereign states. — Insta ntnood 19:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would concur. As far as I know, both the Cook Islands and Niue may become completely and fully independent at any time they wish. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Referendum They would have to separate with a popular referendum, like Quebec or a Malay state, or an emirate in the UAE, but none of those are sovereign (although all are independent in a sense). -Justin (koavf), talk 14:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I mis-phrased myself before, but I'm also afraid you're wrong. Neither the Cook Isl. nor Niue actually need to become independent, since they already are; the Cook Islands already have diplomatic relations with other countries (Germany, for instance), and either could join the United Nations at any time they wish; the UN consider them sovereign non-UN member states, as evidenced by the link to the map above. —Nightst a llion (?) 16:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Independence versus sovereignty While the UN and possibly other IGO's and NGO's consider Niue a state, the intro of its article says it all for me:

Although it is self-governing, it is in free association with New Zealand. This means that the sovereign in right of New Zealand is also the head of state of Niue, and most diplomatic relations are conducted by New Zealand on Niue's behalf.

So, it is independet and autonomous (although it cannot actually conduct its own affairs without outside assistance), but not sovereign. -Justin (koavf), talk 17:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you differentiate between sovereignty and independence? Never mind, then, that may well be true; I'm not that knowledgeable about such details, I'm afraid. —Nightst a llion (?) 18:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's addressed by the Realm of New Zealand article. The shared head of state of the Cook Islands, New Zealand, Niue is the Queen (or King) of New Zealand. That doesn't mean each of them is not a sovereign state. Liechtenstein's interest is represented by Switzerland in many countries where there's no embassy or consulate, and the same happens with Ireland (the Republic) and the United Kingdom. The United States also handles some of the affairs of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and Palau. From 1918 and 1940 (de jure until 1944) Iceland was an independent sovereign state in personal union with Denmark, though its foreign affairs and national defence interests were responsible by Denmark. — Insta ntnood 19:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I we continue that line of thought, in what respect are the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man not souvereign? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.157.44.34 (talk • contribs) 13:45, February 25, 2006 (UTC).

Please kindly take a look at British crown dependency. — Insta ntnood 19:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't get that. It seems to me that those island are merely in a personel union with the UK, with the UK taking care of foreign relations. So what's the difference?

I've never heard of Niue and the Cook Islands being considered sovereign before. They are, it would seem, closer to being sovereign than any other non-sovereign entity, but they are certainly not fully sovereign, since another state conducts their foreign relations (on the other hand, see Andorra and Monaco, which are also arguably not fully sovereign). The most analogous situation, I think, would be to the Dominions before the Statute of Westminster - they have many attributes of sovereign states, but are ultimately in a dependent relationship. It might also be noted that UN membership does not necessarily track with sovereignty - India was a member from 1945 (and had been a member of the League of Nations, as well). john k 19:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's never black and white. As far as I can remember India was shortly a dominion before becoming a republic. Independence for Pakistan and India was already promised during the war. — Insta ntnood 20:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

India and Pakistan were dominions from 1947 - India became a republic in 1950. Before that, India was just India - not designated a colony, but ruled by the British. And it nevertheless got to be a member of the League of Nations and the UN. At any rate, I think we'd have to find a list of sovereign countries which includes Niue and the Cook Islands before we could add them to this list. john k 18:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The UN Decolonisation Committee map mentioned above is one. Before 1947 the British Raj was an empire under British rule, but not designated a colony (or crown colony, protectorate, or equivalence), am I right? Was its adminsitration subordinate to the Colonial Office, or had its own office/department? Who was in charge to handle the foreign relations of the British Raj, e.g. its relations with the League of Nations, and later the UN? Thanks. (The discussion concerning India and Pakistan may better be continued elsewhere.. :-) ) — Insta ntnood 20:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That the Cook Islands and Niue are no longer colonies does not mean that they are to be considered sovereign states. The Indian administrataion was completely separate from the Colonial Office, being handled (before 1858) by the Board of Control of the East India Company and (after 1858) by the India Office, which had its own Secretary of State. My understanding is that the India Office would have been responsible for the League of Nations and UN stuff. Diplomatic relations with, for instance, the various Princely States would have been handled by the Viceroy. But I don't know for sure...this is becoming, as you note, highly tangential. john k 05:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

But in modern times only sovereign states are eligible to apply to be members of the UN. That's the situation of the Cook Islands and Niue. Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Mircronesia and Palau are all in similar situations, except that they all obtained UN memberships shortly after concluding the compacts of free association. — Insta ntnood 09:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm at least partially convinced by what you say and by looking at the World Factbook. The "free association" status is apparently identical to that for the Marshall Islands, et al. And the fact that New Zealand runs foreign policy seems similar to France providing defense for Monaco, or France and Spain for Andorra. I now think they probably ought to be included with notes. john k 17:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And I do agree with you that we've to look for more evidence before doing so. — Insta ntnood 19:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Cook Islands Parliament is Sovereign

It's interesting to note that the Cook Islands constitution actually says that the Cook Islands Parliament is sovereign:

"There shall be a sovereign Parliament for the Cook Islands, to be called the Parliament of the Cook Islands." — Constitution of the Cook Islands, article 21, section 1.

So the Cook Islands has —(a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) government, and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states — and it is legally sovereign according to its constitution. So why is it not on this list?

Ben Arnold 00:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have relations with other states. Currently, Cook Islands law allows New Zealand to conduct its foreign relations for it. So it might be argued that it doesn't have the capacity to enter into relations with other states. john k 00:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade claims that the Cook Island does have diplomatic relations with other states in its own name[www.mfat.govt.nz/foreign/regions/pacific/country/cookislandspaper.html] [1]. New Zealand is not empowered to unilaterally enter into diplomatic relations on behalf of the Cook Islands. Ben Arnold 04:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case, we can note that the Montevideo Convention is not universally recognized as a judge of who is a sovereign state and who is not. In generaly, the Cook Islands and Niue are not listed as sovereign states. Although, in some ways, their status is analogous to that of the Marshall Islands or Palau (iirc), those former are treated as sovereign states, while the Cook Islands and Niue aren't. I do think that some mention of them ought to be made here, but perhaps not in the main list. john k 05:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The sovereignty situation of Cook Islands and Niue are indeed very similar with that of Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. The only difference is UN membership, which, in recent years, has become a very influential criteria. — Insta ntnood 11:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

"you will see that this list includes de facto states. The question here is whether Abkhazia and South Ossetia are de facto states, and the answer is yes, so they can be included".

But they are not de facto states! They are occupied territories with administration appointed from Russia and among Russian citizens. They are precisely de facto occupied territories! So they should not be included.

23:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)~

Reasons for Abkhazia and S Ossetia to be included

They are de facto independent. Case closed. —Nightst a llion (?) 18:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above and present valid arguments for your POV. Irakliy81 18:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly tired of this *censored*. We've been through this discussion about a dozen times in the last year. Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Somaliland, and so on are de facto independent states, therefore they're listed here. This has got nothing to do with my POV (which, in fact, is in favour of Georgian reunification).

I s'pose to quell the repetition of this discussion every second week or so, we should simply call a RfC and a vote on whether the six disputed, but de facto independent entities should be included or not. Anyone going to go ahead and do that, please? —Nightst a llion (?) 18:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I am tried of people saying that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are de facto independent because they are de facto independent. If you have any facts supporting this matter please present them, if you have presented them in previous debates please point me to them (I have only been here for about a month or two). There are many regions of the world that are more de facto independent than Abkhazia and South Osseti – all 50 states of the US or any autonomous republic in Russia just to name a few. However, I don’t see them in this list. Now, if you agree to add all of those, including others I haven’t mentioned but that have a degree of de facto independence higher or equal to that of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, you will not hear any protest from me. Irakliy81 19:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Simply go through this talk page's archive. We've been through this again and again. If you're still not satisfied after reading the arguments presented in the archives, we'll call a RfC and see what the general opinion on WP is. —Nightst a llion (?) 19:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: If you really think that the U.S. states or autonomous republics in Russia are de facto independent in the same way that Abkh., S Oss., Transn., N-K, Somaliland and N Cyp. are, you haven't read this article's introduction thoroughly. —Nightst a llion (?) 19:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I looked though the archives and could only find one long discussion relevant to Abkhazia. That discussion took place several weeks ago and resulted in a consensus to split the article into two separate lists.

Now, regarding me not understanding the introduction. I think there is a slight miss understating in the way you interpret the word “independent”. I never argued that Abkhazia is not de facto independent from Georgia. Doing this would be denying facts. But there is a big difference between being independent from someone and being sovereign. Abkhazia is very much politically dependent on Russia and as such does not fit the main criteria of de facto independent state. Your argument basically goes like this: Abkhazia is not controlled by Georgia and thus it is independent. This is the same as saying: California is not controlled by Mexico and thus it is independent. A sovereign entity can not be dependent on any other sovereign entity. This is the main distinction. If Abkhazia had a truly independent government you would hear very little argument from me. In reality however, Abkhazian government is nothing more than puppet Russian regime that cries every chance it has that Abkhazia should be a part of Russia.

In all truthfulness Abkhazia is a disputed territory and should be classified as such, and listed separately along with Kurdistan and Kosovo. Irakliy81 19:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nightstallion, A LOT OF arguments and FACTS have been brought confirming Abkhazia and South Ossetia not being even de facto independent.It seems you don't even bother to read what other people say. Pirveli 20:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nightstallion, you clearly do not understand the concept of well argumented debate and proof. Let me venture a guess: a not-math-related major. “I am tired of this” - is not an argument. “They are de facto independent. Case closed " - is not a proof.

First of, why do even bring up de facto as an argument. The article has a clear definition with four parts. This means that you should start from this definition if you want to prove anything. Or you should argue that a different definition should be used. The fact that the first sentence is using the words de facto only means that this sentence is misleading and should be brought in compliance with the definition.

Second of all, why do you even insist that they are de facto independent? People here brought forth plenty of arguments to support the opposite (even though they did not have to do this, see my first point), and you still stubbornly refuse to give, without any valid arguments except for “I am tired of this...”

Where do you get your definition of de facto anyways? Let's look at what Wikipedia has to say about de facto independence, shall we? Look under Politics[[2]], last paragraph: “a nation with de facto independence is one that is not recognized by other nations or by international bodies, even though it has its own government that exercises ABSOLUTE control over its claimed territory.”

It's been shown here beyond any reasonable doubt that none of these entities have governments that “exercise absolute control over their claimed territories”. Well, it turns out that even your attempt to hide behind “de facto” clause fails miserably. What do you have to say now besides “I am tired”? Silently revert it again? (PaC 22:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Regardless of your personal attacks (take a look at WP:NPA, and also notice that the Austrian school system does not have the concept of "majors"; I did, in fact, take my Matura in Maths both in the written and in the oral exams, and has Physics in oral exams, so that much for "not understanding well-argumented proof and argument"), let's clear a few things up. Saying that A&SO should not be on this list because they depend on Russia would lead to excluding Bhutan, because it relies on India; excluding Monaco, because it relies on France; and so on. Saying that U.S. states enjoy more independence is also wrong; after all, laws decided by the U.S. federal administration apply to each U.S. state, while laws decided in Georgia don't mean shit to A&SO for now.

A number of countries don't exercise absolute control over their claimed territories; on that basis, we shouldn't include Sri Lanka (doesn't control the Tamil Eelam-controlled NE of the island), Morocco (doesn't control the Polisario-controlled part of Western Sahara), Madagascar (doesn't control the Iles Eparses which belong to France), and so on.

Even though I'm getting the impression that neither of the supporters of the Georgian POV in this debate (again, noting that I am also in favour of reunification, which does not in any way influence my opinion on the de facto independence of A&SO) is likely to be convinced by arguments but only by a straw poll (ergo my "I'm tired of this" line), I'll try one last time to explain why A&SO need to be included the same way that Transnistria and Northern Cyprus are, or why a number of United Nations member states need to be removed from the list on the same grounds.

a permanent population — I think you won't argue with that; obviously, people live there.

<from decwindows>My arguments for that (you could see full text above in the "Removal of Abkhazia and South Ossetia" "article")

Abkhazia has almost no permanent population - it is not just from 70 to 85% of the population is displaced under various pretexts. The remaining locals are moving out everyday. And slowly, but completely new (outsiders) persons are moving in. There are two state programs in Russia both of which aim to move and settle considerable amount of people to Abkhazia. One of the program has already begun - retired army and FSB (the new name of the KGB) officers are going to receive their apartments and cottages in several places - including Abkhazia. And some of them already moved in. And that is not all - the displaced persons (Georgian refugee) infiltrate whenever and wherever they can, back - then some return to the unoccupied parts of Georgia, some stay, making the zone of the Georgian control wider, some are pushed out by the Russian forces etc etc etc.

And Reichskommissariat Ostland had certain population too � only not everyone was "over" sure he (or she) is not going to get into a concentration camp and die there or if he (or she) is not going to be just mudered on the street for belonging to a "wrong" ethnic group or for being "suspicious". And many were mudered, many would ran away to the unoccupied territories of the USSR, many would ran back - seeing no warm welcoming there; many ran to the forests to guerilla groups etc etc etc.

a defined territory — Both Abkhazia and South Ossetia have clear claims as to what exactly their territory should be; whether they control all of it or not is irrelevant (see above, many UN member states don't control all the territory they claim).

It is not only "Abkhazia" and "South Ossetia" do not control all "their" territories - all, completely all "their" territories are controlled either by (mostly) the Russian army and or by Georgia - and there are zones of fighting for control between Russia and Georgia. "South Ossetia" is a real chessboard of zones of Russian-Georgian control.

government — Well, they obviously have a government, and even elections of some kind or another.

There were"local authorities" and even "elections" in Reichskommissariat Ostland on occupied by Nazis USSR territory - so what? And now similar thing is in Northern Cyprus, "Abkhazia" and "South Ossetia" too � so what?

capacity to enter into international relations — They do regularily meet with the Russian president, and that's about as much international relations as the government of Northern Cyprus has.

Russian president regularily meets mayor of Moscow (capital of Russia) - and? Hitler had met some of "authorities" from Reichskommissariat Ostland - and? And listing Northern Cyprus as "de facto independent state" is objected as much as listing there "Abkhazia", "South Ossetia", South Lebanon (in section "de facto independent states" of the past), Reichskommissariat Ukraine (in section "de facto independent states" of the past).

—Nightst a llion (?) 07:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[Please see my previous arguments - in the "Removal of Abkhazia and South Ossetia" article]

Insofar as your "I'm thoroughly tired of this *censored*" was not a personal attack, my comment was merely a guess based on the observation of your style of argumentation. I am glad I was wrong and I apologize if you got offended by it.

I am glad you presented some arguments now. But...

I do not think that we should try to justify the inclusion of UN members and internationally recognized states. The decision was already made for us. They are de jure independent. If you do want to argue for their exclusion be my guest. But then it will only emphasize the case for the exclusion of A&SO, won't it?
Leaving aside everything else, your interpretation of the capacity to enter into international relations is very surprising. Since when does meeting with Russian president amount to entering into international relations? Your position is especially strange after all those kilobytes of arguments showing that A&SO are in fact de-facto occupied by Russia. As for Northern Cyprus I do not think it should be included either (although I do not know enough about it to make definitive statements). Same goes for Transdnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh.
I do not see why you keep calling this Georgian POV. I just do not think that occupied territories should be considered sovereign states. Let me ask you explicitly: do you think that a territory occupied by another state should be considered a sovereign state?

Here's a quote from Legal Encyclopedia [3] for you to ponder about: "Sovereignty - The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable {emph. by me, PaC} power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference {emph. by me, PaC}."

And the last question. Why can't we at least separate the undisputed sovereign states and disputed de-facto states in the separate lists with links from the Contents box and all the comments and footnotes?(PaC 08:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Trying to cut a potentially enervatingly long discussion short: Maybe we could arrive at a rather simple compromise. I do not contest that the status of A&SO as de facto independent states is not as strong as the one of Somaliland (the only de facto independent state not originally occupied by another state's army). Since, however, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh and Northern Cyprus are commonly referred to as de facto independent states in media and scientific texts (despite the fact that they could be argued not to have control over their territory, but instead being occupied by another state's army), we could simply make our notes for them read "commonly considered de facto independent" and "claim contested", or something along those lines. What do you say to that? —Nightst a llion (?) 12:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Such notes are a good idea, however these regions should be listed separately from the sovereign states. We can just make 3 sections (just like it is in the flags and coat of arms' lists) - 1.sovereign states; 2.unrecognized states; 3.dependant territories. We already have all of them together in the List of countries. So, it's no need to mix these categories once more in the other lists. Including this one. Pirveli 15:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Pirveli's suggestion is OK with me except I do not see the need for dependent territories here. In other words 1: Sovereign states 2:Unrecognized states, and place Nightstallions note about commonly considered or commonly referred to, and all other appropriate notes. I think Taiwan should be in the first list. We can also try fix the definition to avoid future "edit wars", by placing "recognized by more than one (two?, three?) countries as one of the criteria for inclusion in list 1. In addition we can create a separate list 3. Territories with highly contested status for things like Sealand and the likes, but I do not insist on this one at all. (PaC 17:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

I would also suggest to change the criteria for inclusion to reflect what's realy going on. In particular, the main criterion for inclusion in list 1 is really de-jure recognition by at least several states. I think people (including Nightstallion) have shown here that Montevideo criteria hardly even apply to many de-jure states. The criteria for inclusion in list 2 may be smth like what Nightstallion said "Geo-political entities commonly referred to as de-facto independent states". Then we can also mention Montevideo convention definition as an alternative definition and drop a line that it is hard to apply in practice (or a qualified comment from an international lawyer on the subject). Each list can then be expanded with footnotes and comments. I think it's pretty NPOV and closer to the facts than the present list (before the "wars"). Nightstallion? Jiang? What do you think? (PaC 18:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

I don’t like the idea of mentioning Abkhazia or South Ossetia as a sovereign states (I am not knowledgeable enough to make similar statements for Northern Cyprus and the likes). I have presented numerous arguments for why they are not sovereign and I believe putting them in the same list with indisputably sovereign countries is promoting certain political agenda (in this case Russian political agenda). Just to reiterate, my main argument is that a sovereign entity can be politically dependent on another sovereign entity. Not only Abkhazia and South Ossetia are under complete political control of Russia, but they simply can not exist without Russian support. That is if Russia were to disappear tomorrow, both Abkhazia and South Ossetia would collapse. I truly don’t see how entities that cannot exits by themselves are sovereign. I understand, however, that due to Russian propaganda these entities have been presented to the rest of the world as “sovereign”, and as it has been said, they are referred in many places as “de facto” independent countries. Now, there are several solutions I can see:

Classify them (along with other “sovereign states” mentioned in this article) as “Disputed Territories” and remove them from the article entirely. Also provide a link on this article to an article of “Disputed Territories” (this is my preferred solution).

Classify them as “Puppet States” (with a more politically correct term of course, maybe “Dependant States”?). The criteria for such a state would need to be worked out. For example, one of the criterions can be political dependence on another (single) state. Split the list in two and rename the article from “List of Sovereign States” to just “List of States”.

Also, until the dispute is resolved is it possible to “hide” the article so we don’t have to revert it 20 times a day? As there is still no consensus I see the current state of the article as endorsing Russian POV. If it was hidden we could continue the discussion peacefully until the matter is resolved and only then “unhide” it. Irakliy81 01:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

Classify them as "seen by some as sovereign but disputed". We could include them but have a footnote that says this, or say it right next to the name, so it looks like this:

{{ABKHAZIA}} (disputed) — Republic of Abkhazia ^Flag

--Khoikhoi 01:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, if you mean they would be in the list separate from the "list of sovereign states" I agree. In fact, here's something that may help the confusion: At the moment "List of States" is redirected to "List of Sovereign states". If we do it the other wasy around, then it will not be strange to see in the "List of States" article two separate lists: 1: Sovereign states and 2:States with disputed sovereignty. (PaC)

That actually does not sound like a bad idea. I suggest we add a requested move. --Khoikhoi 03:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Abkhazia is not soveren state!

Proposal for change I

Just to sum up. I propose to do the following:

Rename the article "List of States" and redirect "List of Sovereign States" to it.
Within this "List of States" article create two lists: 1: Sovereign states and 2:States with disputed sovereignty and provide links from the table of contents.

Without going in further details, let's figure out where we stand on this. I implore the opponents to express their opinion on this proposal ASAP. This is much better then going to silent reverts. This way we'll know how to procede from here. Please indicate how OK you are (if at all) with this proposal in one-two sentences:

PapaCarlo: I agree (well, obviously) (PaC 03:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC))
Khoikhoi: Support. Good idea. --Khoikhoi 03:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Nightstallion: Fair enough. I thought the original rendering was innocent enough, but this will be fine, too. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Irakliy81: Good Idea. Support it 90% Irakliy81 03:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Jiang: ...
Pirveli: I support the idea. It's not an ideal for me, but I think it's a reasonable compromise. Pirveli 10:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
decwindows:I do not agree - please look at my proposal below before keeping the vote carry on
Latinus:...
Gerodot - ...1: Sovereign states
Support If only the intro of the article/list is explicit enough in defining just what it is that it's listing/ranking, then there should be no real controversy. Btw, there is already a list of countries and other lists that overlap. Also, Republika Srpska and other former breakaway states have renounced their claim to sovereignty as part of a peace deal. //Big Adamsky 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

. . .

Oh yeh. Please sign with (~~~~)

(PaC 03:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC))

Do not think of it as some sort of final vote. Think of it as pre-screening of our positions

<decwindows: my poposal - beginning>

I do not think Abkhazia and "South Ossetia" are states at all, they, as "states" or "not-states", exist only "on TV" - only in mass media and (partly) in politics sphere. In reality, the regions which are claimed to be the places of their existence are territories partly militarily occupied by Russia, partly remain under Georgian control. But the idea of their existence is used by Russia as an "excuse", a facade for occupation. They are NOT "de facto independent states", they are NOT "unrecognized states" - just occupied territories. My arguments may be read above on the page.

So I believe they should not be in a list, containing word "states".

I believe they undoubtedly must be listed somewhere - I am not insisting they should be in a list called "occupied territories". It is a fair description, but may be considered to be emotional or politically motivated - it is like when one sees a perspired person to point out and to say "this one is perspired" - it is not something anyone would expect - even if it is technically correct.

I propose to make a starting list "States and territories" or "List of states and territories"

With subdivisions:

1. "Sovereign states" or just "Independent states" 2. "Territories with disputed status"

All separatist territories or considered by some to be separatist territories meet perfectly well number 2 position. "Territories with disputed status" - that is what they are: (half-joke) - I believe they are "occupied territories", Nightstallion believes they are "de facto independent states". Word "territory" is much more neutral. Both a "de facto independent state" and an "occupied territory" are territories. So if one insists they are "de facto independent states" and the other they are "occupied territory" - both of the persons can not deny that they or "they" are a part of the planet Earth - territories.

The word "territory" is much neutral politically - if you call some entity "state" - makes little difference a "de facto independent state" or just an "independent state" - you TAKE a POLITICAL (or politically motivated) position.

Listing phenomena like Abkhazia, "South Ossetia" or Northern Cyprus in "Territories with disputed status" and giving in the article all POVs you let the wikipedia.org visitor to decide for himself (or herself) how to describe them "states" or whatever.

<decwindows: my poposal - end>

I like decwindows’ idea better if the division would be sovereign states and territories with disputed status I would support it 100% Irakliy81 04:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. State is synonym of sovereign state. Diplomatic recognition is among the criteria that must be fulfilled to be considered a sovereign state. We already have a separate list for self-proclaimed sovereign states with little or no diplomatic recognition. — Insta ntnood 15:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So the point of this discussion is to separate and clealy distinguish these self-proclaimed "states" with no recognition from the sovereign states. Pirveli 15:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

i) Self-proclaimed states with very little or no diplomatic recognition are not sovereign states, and ii) states and sovereign states are synoymous, except when the former is used to refer to subnational entities (e.g. Bavaria, California). — Insta ntnood 17:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't oppose the move (careful with capitalization though), but I see problems in the split sections. What is "States with disputed sovereignty" supposed to mean? Who is disputing the sovereignty? Can I declare myself world dictator and dispute the sovereignty of every single state in the world? It cannot be npov without clear criteria, and it must be ensured that this criteria is clearly followed. --Jiang 17:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

All good points I think. I guess I wasn't careful in that definition. "States with disputed sovereignty" is not a good choice. Both "States" and "disputed" may be misleading here.

OK, let's try to sum up:

So the issue right now is that some of us say that disputed territories are not states, and some of us say that they are, correct me if I am wrong.
Do we at least agree that they should not be in the same list as all the sovereign states? As I can see most agree on that. Jiang's position on that is not very clear.
If we do agree to separate the lists then next we have two choices (it seems).
1. Place the disputed territories in a separate section of the article. We just need to find an appropriate name. (How about "Territories with uncertain status" or "Territories with uncertain statehood". Feel free to suggest smth better...)
2. Include a paragraph or so about "de-facto-unreconized-occupied-uncertain-statehood" and provide a link to another article - "List of unrecognized countries". In this case we may not need to move the article from "List of sovereign states" to "List of states".
I think if we decide in principle on the issue of separation we can later discuss the criteria and if we do not agree on those we can start the whole game again if we want.

Did I leave something out? Please comment on this.

(PaC 19:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC))

More or less agree. I'd prefer keeping the list under the current title, and add a section for the self-proclaimed sovereign states, with a disclaimer in the beginning stating that without diplomatic recognition they do not actually qualified as sovereign states. They're listed (but in a separate section) only because they're self-proclaimed, and currently having control of their own territories. — Insta ntnood 22:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My objection to the split is over the criteria by which these items of the list are categorized. It seems to me as if there isnt any criteria or logical reason for keeping items separate. The criteria should be created first, with the states sorted according to this criteria, rather than the other way around. "Territories with uncertain status" or "Territories with uncertain statehood" is similarly ambiguous and hard to define. What do you mean by "uncertain"? Is it a state or is it not? Why be so wishy-washy? How can you have "uncertain statehood"? Does "uncertain status" mean you are clueless and need to look up a reference book to find out? --Jiang 23:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose By creating different categories/levels, we get into the fragmented mess of having endless discussion of where to place a so-and-so entity to one of those categories. We run into the danger of circumstantial POV accusations or supporting a hidden agenda (even if we do not intend to do so) when we place an entity into a certain section. Some people will get headaches when they realize that they have to go to another section to search for a so-and-so entity. And then in the future there will be new wikipedia users who might see all of this mess and enter into another round of revert wars. I agree that the current list is controversial, but I think that things will become even more controversial if we suddently create different classes of states. I really think footnotes and introductory notes are sufficient and accessable and say enough. If that's not enough for you, we could place additionally notes next to the entity of interest while keeping the alphabetical order of the state listing. We don't have to overdo things; we should keep things simple. If Wikipedia had a truly cross-reference database to help people find a certain entity among the so-called proposed different categories of states, perhaps I would be less opposed. Allentchang 00:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Allentchang, taking your argument a little further it can be said that there is no need for this article at all. After all we are trying to classify entities as sovereign states and by doing so inadvertently could be supporting someone’s hidden agenda. Moreover, it is impossible to classify anything without creating a headache. The whole encyclopedia should be just an alphabetized list of articles without any categorization at all. In reality however, categorization is very useful – the helps the reader to understand the information in more cognitive manner. The problem is that categorization for encyclopedia should be factual. It must not rely on vague criteria. If it is possible to argue whether a certain entity belongs to a certain category the definition of this category is not good enough. For example, let’s say we have a category called “fish”. I do not think it will create any confusion for people at all. I also do not think that anyone will get a headache when they realize that tigers are not listed under “fish” category, and are actually located under category of “mammals”. Also, just because some people might think that dolphins are fish they should not be listed in the “fish” category with a note that says that some people classify dolphins as mammals. This is possible only because there are clear cut criteria for what is fish and what is not. As I have argued before, listing Abkhazia under the category of “Sovereign States” (footnotes or not), is the same as listing dolphins under “fish” category with a footnote that says that a dolphin might not actually be a fish. There just shouldn’t be such ambiguities; we should have clear, indisputable criteria of what should be included in the list. Irakliy81 08:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jiang, I agree with you completely that the reason for this uncertainty comes from the criteria for inclusion that the article uses. Hence the Proposal for change II (PaC 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Proposal for change II (criteria for inclusion)

OK, let's try to approach this from a different direction.

Motivation

I think we all agree that the reason for the current dispute is the genuine uncertainty and ambiguity of the status of these self-proclaimed territories.
In turn, the reason for this uncertainty, as Jiang pointed out, is coming from the current definition provided in the article. I do not think anybody would disagree that the Montevideo Convention's definition is really vague and genuinely ambiguous. We've seen it being used to argue both for statehood and against it for the same territory. In fact many UN member countries more likely to not qualify as states under this definition. Do we really want to exclude them?
Even the Wikipedia article on Montevideo Convention says that its use is questionable and that “Generally, a middle-ground approach to the recognition of statehood has been taken; a recognition of states approach.”
I do not see why we should take a different approach from the one generally taken, especially since it will allow us to get out of this conundrum in a clean and NPOV way.
If we take the criteria for statehood to be “recognition by several UN member states” or smth like that we are done. It is unambiguous, clear and NPOV. Case closed and no reasonable editor who in the future stumbles upon this article would raise question whether some territory should be included in the list or not.
The article, I think, should include smth like the following: “An alternative approach to defining a statehood is given by Montevideo Convention: <provide definition>, which is somewhat vague and questionable. Under this definition one may argue that the territories that are commonly referred to as de-facto independent also satisfy the requirements for statehood. (See, for example, the List of unrecognized countries, or the List of countries and territories.)"
I believe this approach is neutral, noncontroversial, and factual.

(PaC 02:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Where do we stand?

Let's see where we stand on this. I hope this approach does not annoy anybody. I personally find that it works well. Again, do not think of this as a final vote of some sort. Just a pre-screening of our positions. If we all agree we can proceed further if not we'll discuss it some more. (PaC 02:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Do you agree that Montevideo Convention definition of statehood is vague and ambiguous?

PapaCarlo: Yes (PaC 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
Khoikhoi: No, but I'm willing to compromise. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Nightstallion: No, but if a majority thinks so, we'll have to come up with a more acceptable substitute. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Irakliy81: Yes Irakliy81 02:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Jiang: ... No, though there may be specific vague and ambiguous cases that need further clarifications.
Pirveli: Yes Pirveli 08:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
decwindows:...
Latinus:...
Gerodot ...
Big Adamsky:...
Instantnood:...
Allentchang:No It clearly says that diplomatic recognition is a sufficient but not necessary condition to determine if a political community is a state. See comments below. Allentchang 14:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
John Kenney: ... tentatively Yes. Clauses b (a defined territory) and d ("capacity to enter into relations with other states,") seem to be ambiguous. That said, perhaps these phrases have clearer meanings under international law. john k 20:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hebel: Yes. see comment belowGerard von Hebel 20:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to place your name here:

...

Do you agree that the “recognition by other states" approach is clear and NPOV (neutral)?

PapaCarlo: Yes (PaC 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
Khoikhoi: No, because de facto states should be included, but we should compromise. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Nightstallion: Clear yes, neutral no. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Irakliy81: Yes. Irakliy81 02:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Jiang: ... only if we specify a general number like "several UN member states" stated above or "more than one sovereign state" stated below and also mention Montevideo Convention somewhere in the text
Pirveli: Yes Pirveli 08:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
decwindows:...
Latinus:...
Gerodot ...
Big Adamsky:...
Instantnood:...
Allentchang: No : A de-facto thought police could force everyone to pay lipservice that XYZ is a Red Communist, that split-infinitives is wrong, and that masturbation causes ABC. When the thought police is not around, people informally indicate the opposite. Allentchang 14:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
John Kenney: No, neither clear nor NPOV, I should think. It is not clear, in that you have to set an arbitrary cut-off point. Presumably one state recognizing you (as is the case, e.g. for North Cyprus and Nagorno-Karabakh), is not enough. 25 (the number of countries recognizing the Republic of China), is presumably sufficient...or is it? At what point is the line drawn. As to NPOV, if there are several different methods available for determining what is a state and what is not, it is of course POV to just assert one of them. john k 20:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hebel: Yes. See comment below.Gerard von Hebel 20:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to place your name here:

...

====Do you agree to change the criteria for inclusion in the list from Montevideo Convention's to smth like “Recognized by at least several UN member states”?==== If not please suggest an alternative (or say Montevideo criteria).

PapaCarlo: Yes (PaC 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
Khoikhoi: Neutral. Montevideo is important too. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Nightstallion: Abstain. I don't really like it, but I won't vote no. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Irakliy81: Yes Irakliy81 02:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Jiang: changing the main list? I dont oppose. but Montevideo Convention and unrecognized states should be mentioned somewhere in the beginning or the end of the article
Pirveli: Yes Pirveli 08:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
decwindows:...
'Latinus:...
Gerodot ...
Big Adamsky:...
Instantnood:...
Allentchang:No The Montevideo Convention is emphasized in a standard political geography course than what UN member states think. We risk being a de-facto UN agency if we base on what UN member states think. The Montevideo Convention is meant to stand the test of POVs with respect to time. Allentchang 14:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
John Kenney - Tentatively, yes...I've always found it odd that places like Abkhazia and South Ossetia are included in our main list. I agree with Jiang that we ought to mention the unrecognized states somewhere, though. john k 21:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hebel: Something like that.See comment below.Gerard von Hebel 20:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to place your name here:

...

If you agree with the previous question do you agree to include a paragraph on Montevideo definition and a link to the list of unrecognized countries?

PapaCarlo: Yes (PaC 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
Khoikhoi: Yes. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Nightstallion: Yes, certainly. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Irakliy81: Maybe. Irakliy81 02:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Jiang: Yes
Pirveli: Yes Pirveli 08:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
decwindows:...
'Latinus:...
Gerodot ...
Big Adamsky:...
Instantnood:...
Allentchang:Yes
John Kenney: Of course. john k 21:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hebel: Yes. See comment below.Gerard von Hebel 20:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to place your name here:

...

Comments

To keep it clean, let's place our comments on Proposal II (criteria) here, so that the others can follow our train of thought (PaC 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

I would like to change the definition to "a sovereign state must have diplomatic relations with more than one other sovereign state." Irakliy81 02:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jiang, just out of curiosity, since you don’t think Montevideo Convention is ambiguous, would you explain what exactly is meant by “government” (criterion c) and “capacity” to enter into relations with the other states (criterion d). I understand that if an entity has a “government” it has the “capacity” to enter into diplomatic relations with other states, whether it utilizes this capacity or not. Example: California has a government, there is nothing preventing a Governor of California from entering into diplomatic relations with Mexico. I am not saying that such a move would be beneficial for California, nor that Mexico would want to do that, I’m just saying that “capacity” is there. Yet, we all know that California is not a “sovereign state” (even though it could easily exist without the rest of the United States), so either I am misunderstanding these two definitions or they are ambiguous. Irakliy81 08:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Irakliy, "Sovereign state must be recognized by other sovereign states" is a recursive definition without a base case (circular definition). This way if 3 people recognize each other as states they may be claimed to fit a definition. "Recognition by UN member states" takes us out of the loop and gives a clearer definition. It's a technicality, but still...(PaC 09:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Agreed (I as CS Major should have known that), only then I would say “recognition by more than one UN member state” Irakliy81 09:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a non-issue if you look at the real world. It just hasn't happened. --Jiang 09:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the recursive recognition? Well, i did say its a technicality... Still, suppose all unrecognized recognize each other simultaneously?(PaC 09:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Abkhazia and South Ossetia do that, as far as I know. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are my comments. If you really do think that the Montevideo Convention is vague, maybe you could accept the vagueness rather than to subscribe to a prescribed dogma imposed by someone or by some poltically-charged agency. Vagueness is what makes a document to weather the challenges and the changes in the point of view with respect to time. Look at the US consitution: if we did a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights, we could argue that the local state governments could pass laws that would violate a person's rights because the Bill of Rights only say that Congress cannot pass a law to infringe a person's rights. Vagueness is what expanded our civil rights. So there is nothing wrong with being vauge. Even the statement in the Montevideo Convention article “Generally, a middle-ground approach to the recognition of statehood has been taken; a recognition of states approach.” is pretty vague: there is no elaboration of this statement or an extensive presentation of examples.

Then comes the philosophical question of how many states need to recognize a political community in order for that political community to be a state. One state? Two states? How many hair follicles do you need to lose in order to be considered bald? How many grains of salt do you remove untill the heap of salt is no longer a heap? Do you have to get recognition from UN countries in order to be a state just like you have to be patronized by rich people in order to be considered the upper crust of society? Do you have to be on Oprah's bookclub to be a true author? Isn't that a point of view?

Then one person could perform stalkish actions at everyone else to force everyone to believe that person ABC is a Red Commie that should be purged McCarthy-style, to believe that split-infinitives must be wrong, or to believe that masturbation is wrong (remember a certain Surgeon General who was attacked by the Republicans?). Because everyone else wants to avoid hearing the dogma further, they end up paying lip-service while informally not agreeing or feeling uncomfortable with that dogma. The same thing could be said about trying to use the recognition criterion on the existence of a state. The greatness in the Montevideo Convention is that it states that the reality of the existence of a state is not subjected and answerable to any agency that forces everyone to officially say otherwise. Again, the Montevideo Convention more or less says that recognition is a sufficient but not necessary condition to determine if something is a state. It gives a benefit of a doubt rather than to be dogmatic.

Ultimately, I feel very uncomfortable using the point of view of the UN or the point of view of the UN member states. Their point of view is presented in the list of UN member states. We do not need the list of sovereign states to become another list of UN member states page. We are not an agency of the UN.

And the use of multicategories to describe states is inherently confusing. Creating muticategories is equivalent to creating multi-dimensions of data. The non-scientist human is very uncomfortable at looking at additional dimensions of data. Allentchang 14:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Allentchang, vagueness is good in some places but not in others. This is an encyclopedia - there should be no vagueness here. Every definition here must be as clear cut as possible. After all, we can not define “fish” as everything that lives under water. This defining is vague and while it does allow us to include dolphins into “fish” category I do not thing such flexibility is desired. If we do not use UN membership as a criterion of sovereignty we need to come up with some other indisputable criteria that will allow us to determine whether or not a certain entity is a sovereign state. Above I have presented my arguments for why I think Montevideo Convention is ambiguous, care to take a sub at disambiguating it for me? Irakliy81 15:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Allentchang, a non-scientist person, which you are caring about will be confused and misinformed, if the encyclopedia article tells him, that separatist regions have the same status as the sovereign states. Also, many non-scientist persons won't pay attention to the notes. Thus, the uncontrolled reigions, like Waziristan, Karen, Abkhazia, Transnistria, Tamil Eelam, etc should be listed separately from France, Hungary or Brazil. Othervise, a great number of non-scientist users, who you seem to care about are being misinformed. Pirveli 17:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just some rough idea.. would it be possible to create a list of sovereign states by diplomatic recognition (i.e. by number of sovereign states with official, but not de facto, diplomatic relations), and/or a list of sovereign states by recognition/acknowledgement of existence. Using North Korea as an example, which does not have diplomatic relations with the United States, but its existence is acknowledged/recognised by the United States, the United States will not be counted in North Korea's figure in the former, and will be counted in the latter. — Insta ntnood 20:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, there clearly are barriers to California entering into diplomatic relations with Mexico - notably the United States Constitution:

Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Seems pretty clear to me that California, along with most other subnational entities, does not meet the Montevideo criteria for the last point. Which isn't to say that the point is unambiguous - I think it's quite ambiguous. What do we make of the constituent states of the German Empire - they all had defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and actually had diplomatic relations with other states. The kingdoms (Bavaria, Saxony, and Württemberg) actually had foreign ministers and maintained diplomatic relations with various states - not only other German states, but, iirc, with other European countries, notably Austria. I also seem to remember that Hesse-Darmstadt, due to long-standing family ties to the Russian Imperial House, kept an ambassador in St. Petersburg. So, the German states would seem, in fact, to be sovereign states under the Montevideo doctrine. Another weird case: the heretofore discussed Cook Islands and Niue. The foreign relations of these countries are under the control of New Zealand. However, the governments of these places have the right to take over control of their own foreign affairs and enter into relations with other states if they want to. Except that they don't. And, furthermore, I think it would actually require some affirmative steps for them to actually be able to do so - they'd have to amend their constitution to remove the management of foreign affairs from the New Zealand government. So it's quite arguable that the Cook Islands both have, and do not have, the ability to enter into relations with other states. What about the British Dominions before 1931? They were members of the League of Nations. Canada had foreign ministers from 1909, Australia from 1901, South Africa from 1927, and the Irish Free State from 1922. And they certainly meet the other three criteria. But they're normally not considered to have been fully sovereign, and their conduct of foreign relations was fairly limited. What about India before 1947 - it was a member of both the League and the UN, although I don't think it had diplomatic relations with any individual countries. It also clearly meets the other three criteria. But it obviously wasn't a Sovereign State - its government was almost entirely appointed by the government of a foreign country. But yet, it seems arguable that it meets the "ability to enter into relations with other states" business, since it did, in fact, have relations with other states through the League and the UN.

The defined territory requirement seems likewise to be ambiguous. Does Israel have a defined territory? It seems arguable that it doesn't. Western Sahara has a claimed territory, but it doesn't control most of it. Does that fit the definition? What about the Palestinians? Both Western Sahara and Palestine are recognized by many countries as sovereign, but I would argue that neither, and especially not the Palestinians, has a defined territory. john k 21:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

John K, one comment about California – you listed “de jure” reasons why California will not do such a thing as enter into diplomatic relations with Mexico. This article however, mentions at least 4 “de facto” states which have no “de jure” rights to proclaim independence. The constitution of Georgia did no allow Abkhazia to proclaim independence, nor could South Ossetia do such a thing. All I’m saying is that if you apply Montevideo Convention in the way you did you either have to include both California and Abkhazia, or exclude them both. They both fit (or don’t fit) the criteria equally well. Yet, California is not listed in this article and Abkhazia is. --Irakliy81 21:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I support Irakliy on that. The word "capacity" is an acme of ambiguity in this definition. Pretty much anything has the capacity to do anything given right circumstances. What about "enter into relations"? Nightstallion apparently thinks that meeting of the "presidents" of Abkhazia and S.O with Russian president is enough (BTW, they are Russian citizens themselves). I am sure tones of people besides Georgians will interpret this differently(PaC 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

Iralkiy - the Governor of California, in his capacity as Governor of the U.S. State of California, does not have the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations with other states. If the California legislature passed an ordinance of secession, declaring California an independent state, that would be quite a different situation. This would be of questionable legality, but it would make the issue of whether California is a state in the Montevideo terms ambiguous. However, so long as California acknowledged the authority of the federal government, it simply does not have the ability to enter into diplomatic relations with anybody, and thus clearly fails the Montevideo test. john k 04:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

John, you present a very strong argument, however, I’m still not convinced. Basically you say California currently does not have the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations with other states, but if it did so and so, it might have the capacity. Rephrasing it a little differently we can say that it has a capacity to acquire a capacity to enter into diplomatic relations. I know that it sounds somewhat bizarre and is not as strong as just having a capacity, yet the conclusion is quite logical. Following the logic we can say if X has a capacity to do Y, and once it does Y it has a capacity to do Z, we can just say that X has a capacity to do Z. --Irakliy81 05:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Allentchang, you say that you do not think that Montevideo criteria are vague when answering the question above, and yet you go on and on explaining how good the vagueness provided by these criteria is. Make up your mind. Is it vague or not? (PaC 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

Nightstallion, and Allentchang, I was wondering: since you do not find Montevideo convention vague and ambiguous, do you think that under Montevideo definition Taiwan undoubtedly qualifies as a sovereign state? Somalia? Western Sahara? Seeland? (PaC 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

And did you know that Quebec has its own foreign ministry? Do you think it qualifies under Montevideo Convention's definition? (PaC 01:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

I'm neither Nightstallion nor Allentchang, but it seems clear that Taiwan undobutedly qualifies under Montevideo. Somalia probably doesn't, since it doesn't really have a government, but it's arguable. Western Sahara is dubious on the "defined territory" grounds, since most of the territory is controlled by Morocco. Sealand doesn't qualify under any standards, because it's absurd. john k 04:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

john k, i agree with your interpretation, but interestingly enough Wikipedia's own article on Montevideo Convention provides a link to a paper that argues on 17 pages that Taiwan does not qualify for statehood under Motevideo. And absurd or not Seeland qualifies for statehood even under moderately conservative interpretation of Montevideo. Same surely goes for Quebec. What about EU? I think it fits Montevideo like a glove. What about all half occupied and occupied territories with puppet governments? We went through that over and over, but still somehow Nightstallion and Allentchang insist that Montevideo is not ambiguous and confusing. I think it is obvious that Montevideo does not allow for easy and clear interpretation. May be the courts can do it, but we here certainly can't and shouldn't(PaC 05:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

John K has a good point that when there are several different methods each of them is a POV. However, "recognition by states" criterion is no less neutral then Montevideo criteria, and by far less ambiguous. As to where to make a cut-off, i.e. how many states should recognize the state to be included in the list, I think the word "several" is a good choice. It emphasizes the significance of recognition - it's definitely more then one. It also has some vagueness to it, that is so dear to Allentchang, yet at current state of affairs this vagueness is not an issue. (PaC 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

Also I think, that it is important to have a "recognition" as a criteria and not "diplomatic relations", since the former emphasizes the recognition of a state and not of a government. (PaC 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

I agree that "recognition by states" is no more POV than the Montevideo criteria. Just that neither of them is clearly NPOV. I somewhat prefer "recognition by states," I think. BTW, do we have any examples of regimes recognized by more than one, but by fewer than 25 other states? If so, at what point do we consider them to be sovereign states under the "recognition by states" standard. If not, how do we deal with the ROC? john k 04:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

As we discussed already "recognized by several sovereign states" or "several UN member states" may be a good criterion. "Several" shows the significance of the recognition. It also does not create any ambiguity at present. ROC is in the list. NC is not. (PaC 05:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

I said that I DON'T find the Montevideo Convention vague. But IF YOU DID FIND IT vague, I provided arguments that vagueness isn't a problem. I'm just addressing your concerns about vagueness. A remember: the reason that we have so many footnotes (with links) and long explanations in the current list is to allow people to understand that we know that there might be people who challenge the list and that we take note of it through the footnotes and introduction. If something is vague, a linked footnote is provided for a long discussion.

Because many are so insistent on using anything associated with the UN as a basis for a list (I could then sarcastically say that person XYZ holds the UN dear), then why don't we have a separate article called List of Sovereign States Recognized by the UN? Keep the list of sovereign states in the present form, note that it uses the Montevideo Convention, and finally note that there is a list of soverign states recognized by the UN, which is more exclusive than the Montevideo Convention based-list. Provide a link to that UN list. The list of Sovereign List should be an exhaustive list of possibilities, not an exclusive list. Allentchang 04:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to understand your statements about the vagueness of Montevideo Convention. If you do not find it vague than why praise vagueness at all?

Wikipedia already has an exhaustive list of possibilities. It is called list of countries. Why do you want to repeat it?

And what kind of an approach is it anyways: provide a vague definition and then place everything that can remotely fit this definition in the list? I do not understand why do you insist on confusing and misleading the readers with ambiguous (as most admit) definition, questionable inclusions and numerous footnotes?

The current proposal gives an equally accepted but infinitely less vague definition and creates an unambiguous list, without all the confusing footnotes. The article does not insist that this is what the sovereign states are. It only says that this is the list according to this definition. Moreover the Montevideo Convention POV will also be presented and the link to unrecognized countries provided. The readers can actually make up their minds rather then have your interpretation of a vague Montevideo convention pushed on them.(PaC 05:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

I only praised it to try to convince you to accept it because YOU think it is vague. (I don't think it is vague, so it's not my problem and I don't need to praise it for my own sake). So you want the UN-interpretation of soveriegn states pushed to people? See the slight problem here? You said that "It only says that this is the list according to this definition." What definition are you talking about here? There has been controversy on whether the list of countries should be merged with the list of sovereign states because if you try to apply the inner dot product between a country and a sovereign state based on everyday usage and normalize it, the correlation would be about .9.

Why does the Bible have footnotes litterd everywhere? What's wrong then for the List of Sovereign States to have footnotes everywhere?

Then why don't we try to use a cocktail, amaglam, combination of what the UN thinks and the Montevideo Convention thinks? Have the List of Sovereign States to include states that have the capacity to enter EITHER OFFICIAL OR UNOFFICIAL relations with other states? That would help sidestep the thorny philosophical issue of how many states needed to recognize a state for that state to be a soveriegn state. This would reduce the list a little because many self-declared sovereign states DON'T even have extensive unofficial relations and de-facto embassies with other states.

I can't buy the argument for instance that the People's Republic of China was not a sovereign state from 1949-1971 because it was recognized by a minority of countries and was not a member of the UN. Nor can I buy the argument that the Republic of China was only a sovereign state from 1912-1971 because it had majority diplomatic recognition during those times. So I would think that saying that a sovereign state has extensive official OR unofficial foreign relations including de-facto OR de-jure representative offices AND a continious existence whether officially recognized or not would be the best compromise. For instance, North Korea does have some sort of relation with the US even if it is not diplomatic. The US also has de-facto embassies in Iran and Cuba even if it doesn't officially recognize those sovereign states. Allentchang 05:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

But I will end my debate here partially because I think we have some consensus about Taiwan/Republic of China in regards to this list. That is, we'll keep it on the list unless it really gets absorbed or officially annexed by the People's Republic of China. Additionally, I am spending a lot of time debating on a series of engineering rules and guidelines with the engineering company that I am working for and the debates over there are also draining my energy. If your X-box 360 is not working well, you should blame me as much as you want because I spend too much time on THIS discussion board. Allentchang 05:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Allentchang, I feel your "pain". My dissertation also suffers (PaC 15:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

Can other editors who participated in this discussion also share their thoughts about this proposal with us? Sorry for "shouting" (PaC 15:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

How many states does one need to recognise a lightbulb?

How about a table with a range of different possible criteria for souvereignity? Each state would get ticks in the colomns of the criteria that they match. Criteria could be:

- recognition by UN

- recognition by at least one UN member [this would rule in Taiwan, Northern Turkey, West-Sahara, Palestina]

- claims to be independant [this would rule out Taiwan, Palestina, Kosova, Tamil Elam, etc.]

- de facto independance from any other state that claims souvereignity over its teritory [note that this would rule in A, SO, NK, NC regardless of independance from Russia/Armenia/Turkey plus all other entries]

This can be a whole new article. Call it "States under different definitions of statehood" or something along these lines. Or just elaborate on this in the article about unrecognized countries. (PaC 20:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

We could then restrict inclusion to teritories that behave independantly from any other teritory that disputes the first teritory's independance. Thus we would include the de facto 6 and a few rebel movements such as Tamil Elam, but exclude teritories with home rule such as the Faroer or sub-national entities such as California. We would have one list, but countries with an incomplete series of 'ticks' would stand out. Alternatively, we could have different sections for all the different possible sets of ticks, even though that would impede clarity. Footnotes could explain how or why some country does not fit some definition and give additional information such as Somalia's total lack of state control, or Israel's not being recognised by some Arabian countries.

Thoughts? [sephia karta]

I disagree. Just because a state does not control part of its territory, and that territory claims to be independent does not make that territory a sovereign state by default. Irakliy81 18:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it does according to some definitions that approximate "might makes right". [sephia karta]

On the first question: De facto independent states does not cover a number of important issues. In many (but not all) cases for instance, the territory they claim belongs to another state, and that fact is recognised as such by all or most members of the international community of states that recognise each others territorial integrity. So these places have no place in the communion of states based on that. Recognition of territorial integrity by others is a defining factor.

On the second question: It is definitely NPOV. Recognition is either extended to a state or not. It can be unclear as to how many recognitions it takes. In practice that will only question the status of Taiwan ROC at this moment. But incidently both ROC and PROC claim the same territory and no state recognises both, therefore this is not about the recognition of a state but of which government of said state (i.c. China)

On the third question: Something like that, although I see no reason why they should be UN member states. Just recognised states will do. I would have no problem with a number like ten or twenty.

On the fourth question: Yes, a seperate list of unrecognised countries would be fine.Gerard von Hebel 20:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Criteria of Sovereignty

Judging from the votes above it is clear that at least half the people find Montevideo Convention at least somewhat vague, and majority agree to include the recognition by other states as at lest part of the criteria for sovereignty. I think it would be wise to take Montevideo Convention and improve on it by defining some of the criterions more clearly. I propose to set criteria for sovereignty as follows:

A defined territory.
A permanent population.
A government that does not acknowledge sovereignty of any other state over it.
Political and economical independence from any one indisputably sovereign state.

Explanation: Criteria 1 and 2 are directly from Montevideo Convention. Criterion 3 is also almost a direct copy. However, a small addition will help to exclude any sub national entity.

Motivation for criterion 4: If an entity is under a complete control of another entity it can not be sovereign by definition. However, in modern world a true sovereignty is almost impossible to find. All states in one form or another depend on other states. A relative sovereignty of such states is ensured by a large number of states they depend on. If however, a state depends on one and only one other state, it is not sovereign but is rather a dependant or a satellite of that state (a “puppet state”). The quick and dirty way to determine this is through recognition. That is, if an entity is de facto recognized by at least 2 indisputably sovereign states it is sovereign itself. The motivation here is that while it is possible to be a “puppet” state of one state, it is almost impossible to be a “puppet” state of 2 or more states simultaneously.

Once we determine which states are sovereign and which are not we can also have a separate list of territories that do not meet the criteria but are commonly referred to as de facto independent. Or we can mention those territories in the introduction and provide a link to the list of de facto independent states. Also, in the introduction we can mention that the new criteria are derived from the Montevideo Convention. --Irakliy81 18:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Irakliy, I do not think we should come up with our own definition especially with one that still requires some interpretation. This way we have to defend why this and not other definition was used, and more importantely it still will cause endless debates about what "defined territory" or "permanent population" means, which de-jure countries actually do not satisfy the criteria and so on.

It seems to me that we almost converged to the solution. Almost nobody objects to using criteria "recognized by several sovereign states", so let's use it. No argument can arise about which state should be listed acording to this definition. It is completely clear and does not require any additional interpretation (at least until the moment when some state becomes recognized by two sovereign states, but let's worry about this when this happens).
In addition we provide Montevideo criteria but instead of doing questionable interpretations of our own we provide a link to the list of unrecognized countries and list of all countries, leaving the interpretation to the user. In addition if somebody wants to elaborate on applicability of Montevideo Convention to particular countries they can do it in the article about unrecognized countries, it's more appropriate there anyways.
I felt that majority supported this plan, and the rest at least did not object (if I understood Allentchang's last paragraph correctly he does not support it, but won't strongly object either).
With this in mind I think we can start implementing these changes in the article. What do you think? (PaC 20:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

I agree with you. I just think the definition I presented above would make it more formal. The results (regarding which entities to include and which to exclude), however, would be the same either way. Irakliy81 20:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

New Version

Can somebody volunteer to create a preliminary new version of the article along the lines that seem to have a majority support:

Criteria for inclusion: "recognized by several sovereign states"
We provide Montevideo criteria and provide a link to the list of unrecognized countries and list of all countries

I am extremely busy next week and will have hard time participating in the discussion. (PaC 00:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

I must disagree with solely the criterium of recognition being a measure for souvereignity. There exists the constitutive theory of statehood and the declaritive theory of statehood. According to the former, recognition is indeed vital. According to the latter, a state is determined by factors independant of recognition. Defining souvereignity as merely being recognised by several other souvereign states is biased towards the constitutive theory of statehood.

Aside from that, the definition above is still recursive and therefore unworkable.[sephia karta]

There is already a List of countries, where most of the entities are included. There should be at least one list with the sovereign states actually. Othervise, according to the declarative theory, anyone can declare his own house to be an independent state and demand it's inclusion to all the encyclopedias. Pirveli 19:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

We went through that many times. Declarative criteria do not give a clear and unambiguous definitions of which states to include. They may be used in courts but we here can not and should not make these interpretations. The approach proposed now is clear, used by most encyclopedia, and not less neutral than any declarative theory. As for recursive definition... I was concerned about his too but I think it is clear to everybody what is meant here. We can become more technical and say something like "a) UN member states are considered sovereign; b)states recognized by several UN member states are considered sovereign, and c) states recognized by already sovereign states are considered sovereign." That should fix this minor technical concern, but would introduce unnecessary confusion in the article. (PaC 02:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

I would like to repeat my proposal (of 2 March 2006):

<<< <<< <<< I propose to make a starting list "States and territories" or "List of states and territories"

With subdivisions:

1. "Sovereign states" or "Independent states", or just "States"

2. "Territories with disputed status" or "Territories with [whatever will be found relevant by our discussion]" or just "Territories" >>> >>> >>>

I mean - to list de jure independent states in "Sovereign states" or just "States" section. All other entities (both real and "imaginary" - those which "exist" only in mass media, and of all other possible sorts) in "Territories with disputed status". Or just "Territories" - giving the information (if it - the territory - is believed to be seeking independence or not: like Bavaria or Tirol) in the article dedicated to a territory itself.

Excuse me for just repeating my 7 day old POV, but creating a "Territories with disputed status" list or whatever with the key word "Territory" - NOT "State", will save a lot of talks and misunderstandings.

Word "State" implicates a lot. By using it ("State") you make a statement - whatever your intentions are - it is like to name a sportsman "the champion" while his (her) championship is not recognized yet (for example, because the court decision is not set yet on whether there has been an doping drug of some kind used or not). Or imagine calling a person under suspicions "a criminal" or "a convict" before the official court decision - you will very much possibly see the court yourself after being that loose about words. A "suspect" is the "worst" name used for a person "with charges". Because naming a person "a criminal" implicates the person IS a criminal - which may, by 50 % probability, have nothing to do with the reality. Having discussions whether the probability is of 80% or 10% will lead away from the really important and relevant things - investigation, court hearings etc. So before the official court decision ONLY neutral, "none-convicting" words are used.

In world politics there are several structures positioning themselves as kind of "courts", deciding how a territory status should be legally, juristically defined in terms of the international law - and wikipedia.org is not one of them. And giving an implicating, "convicting", not neutral name to an entity of the world politics is the same as calling "a murderer" a person who is only a suspect - you may argue in a million of ways that the person is a "de facto" murderer - hardly any sound person would agree with you until the investigation, the court etc are over.

So my strong position is - AVOID CALLING, LISTING ETC an entity as a "state" before it is internationally recognized as such. "Internationally" should mean by the UN or there should be given special consideration (like Switzerland has not been a UN member state for a long time; Ukraine and Byelorussia had been UN members since the UN beginning - before becoming the international law "subjects" - not "objects", before "real" independence).

Using names like "self-proclaimed sovereign states", "unrecognized countries" - is no "excuse" - it is like "self-convicted criminals", "unrecognized convicts".

So I suppose to call all conflict zones, referred to as "separatist" (positioned in some way, proclaimed to be based on any possible grounds (or lack of thereof) as entities aspiring a separate existence) "a Territory" would suit wikipedia.org best as an encyclopeadia, not a political propaganda group.

I propose to make first a most general division, to be clear about the top classification level - "[De jure] States", "not States". I propose to call "not States" - "Territories". And then to discuss the criteria for an entity (a territory) to be defined as "de facto" or "partly sovereign" or whatever.

I believe "Territory" is a neutral enough word - it is a part of the planet Earth. You can discuss if it is only a part of the planet’s surface or plus something below and to what extend "below" - still it will be a "Territory". You can discuss if it is de facto independent or not - still it is a "Territory". And a very, very implicating and controversial word "State" will be avoided in all questionable situations.

Native American tribes

Are Native American tribes regarded as sovereign states? Especially if they have federal and/or state recognition? Asarelah 23:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Burma/Myanmar

I think that a notation should be listed in the B section

something like "Burma: see Myanmar" The US government does not recognize the name Myanmar for the country and uses the name Burma. A cross reference may prove helpful and eliminate confusion. --Ted-m 23:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro

Although Montenegro had officially declared its independence on June 3, and according to the constitution the other member of the union (i.e. Serbia) would be a successor to the union, until this moment neither the parliament of the union nor the Serbian parliament has declared Serbia's succession of the union. The union still exists with one member. Would it be correct to include both Montenegro and Serbia and Montenegro (instead of Serbia) on this list, until the union officially made the name change from Serbia and Montenegro to Serbia? — Insta ntnood 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So, um, the country Serbia and Montenegro still exists, except that Montenegro isn't part of it? This seems a bit silly. john k 10:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to be, but it's does seem to be the status quo. Has the parliament of the union been dissolved, with its power transferred to that of Serbia? If not, have the 35 MPs from Montenegro resigned? What about the President of Serbia and Montenegro? Has he resigned, and has the power been transferred to the President of Serbia (tho he said he was about to do so [4])? — Insta ntnood 11:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As I edited the page, according to the status quo: - Montenegro IS an independent state after de facto (but not official) recognition of its independence by the European Union and the state union of Serbia and Montenegro (according to the agreement proceeding the referendum that stated that if 55%+ vote for independence, the country will be independent) - Serbia and Montenegro does exist as a country, with Serbia being its only constituent part until they declare independence too (expected to do so within the week) and become the successor state of the union. Therefore, both Montenegro and Serbia and Montenegro should be on the list for the time being. Dr. Manos 17:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My changes reflect the fact that Serbia accepted the dissolution today; they legally succeed SiM as Serbia in all international organisations. —Nightst a llion (?) 20:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Great :-) Dr. Manos 22:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Has the parliament of the state union done likewise? Has the successor of the state union, i.e. Serbia, applied to international organisations and the like for name change? — Insta ntnood 20:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Serbia is now officially the successor of SiM's membership in all international organisations. You're welcome to wait until each and every organisation gets around to update their website with the membership data, but I'd be in favour of presenting accurate information *now*. ;) —Nightst a llion (?) 01:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as for the purpose of this list, Serbia is the sovereign state. Nevertheless until it's application for name change is officially approved by the UN, it should still be listed as Serbia and Montenegro on the list of UN member states (same for other similar listings). — Insta ntnood 20:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A procedure for Montenegro's independence and the dissolvement of the State Union was agreed upon long before independence actually happened. At the time Montenegro declared independence this procedure was therefore implicitly executed and the State Union ceased to exist. No country has to ask the UN permission to change its name!Gerard von Hebel 00:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Micronesia

Names in the first line "Federated States of Micronesia" and in English line "Federates States of Micronesia" differs. What is correct?--81.17.152.207 17:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The latter would appear to be a typo. john k 03:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)

Addition of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) as a sovereign entitiy:

RATIONALE:

(1) It satisfies all criteria enlisted in the Montevideo Convention:

(a) a permanent population: CHECK (Turkish)

(b) a defined territory : CHECK (From UN Buffer zone on the south to north of the island of Cyprus)

(c) government CHECK

(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. CHECK (de jure:Turkey, de facto: United States, Organization of Islamic Conference (observer state), EU)

Here it falls into the category of states lacking majority international recognition as: never a UN member, recognized by 1 other state, with complete de-facto control over all of its claimed territory and currently with de facto international relations with many states.

Kertenkelebek 12:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it fulfils the criteria - although it lacks a de facto relationship with the European Union or the USA (this is not a Taiwan case) and it does not have relations with any state without the intervention of Turkey - de facto relationship can only be argued in the case of Azerbaijan through the charter flights to the Nicosia Airport. Dr. Manos 14:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It does have de facto relations with US(check here:TRNC Representative Office to the United States) and EU and all members of Organization of Islamic Conference. Kertenkel ebek ^(talk) 14:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Other than Turkey, every country in the world considers its territory to be part of the Republic of Cyprus. And the fact that the TRNC has an office in Washington doesn't mean that the US gives it de facto recognition - that would only work if the US had an office in North Cyprus somewhere. By your definition, the Confederacy was de facto recognized by England and France because Mason and Slidell lived in London and Paris as "ambassadors," and even met with government officials occasionally. That's not how it works. john k 15:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's at least as sovereign as the other unrecognised states, either we have all of them or none. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

We should obviously list none of those "states". The only entity on the list which qualifies is Taiwan. -- Jordi·✆ 13:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. We should, this is not the list of recognized countries or UN members, it's the list of states that in effect have some sort of sovereignty (such as the TRNC, can't actually claim that the official Cypriot government has any say over it since the Turkish invasion and the subsequent illegal occupation) Dr. Manos 14:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Explaining my Edits to the China's and the Congos's

ROC from C to T: To Conform to List of Countries.
Removal of Tiawan from Republic of China name: Taiwan on the offical sites is just a discripition for tourist/causal people.
Removal of Capital from the two Congo's name: Not offically apart of there Offical Short Form English Name

BionicWilliam 10:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

sovereign States of the U.S.

Can anyone tell me why the Sovereign States of the Fifty States, United are not here? For instance, California Republic, whose Constitution has never been repealed and which has a voting public (the California Jural Society. It has a flag, a Constitution, a populace, and territory. Now I'm not looking for an argument, just a definitive answer why it is not included... The United States, and its Internal Revenue System (quietly) acknowledges its citizen's claims, why not wikipedia? Pedant 02:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Becuase the California Republic no longer exists. Whether repealed or not the actual entity that controls the population and territory of California is the State of California which is subject to the Federal Govt. Can California enter into relations with say Cuba or Mexico without Federal approval ?201.238.87.153 21:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

English Translations

Is there any reason to keep the English Translations in the List of States section, given that the heading of each state is already written in English? Examples include The Bahamas, Dominica, India, Kenya. Suggest deletion for all redundent translations and refraining from adding more English-English translations.

lol - "English to English" translations - keep them just so we can be doubly sure. ;-) Get rid of them!!! Merbabu 16:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Flag images too small

Note that List of sovereign state flags also redirects here, so some people who want to look up a flag might find themselves at this article. But the flag images are so small that they are barely visible.

It would make this article a lot more useful if flag image sizes were about 3 times as big as the present size. It would make looking up flags a lot easier for people who saw a flag somewhere but don't know which country does it belong to. After all this is the purpose of Wikipedia as an encylopedia: to make it possible to easily look up things.

Flags Why are they here at all? Why not coats of arms, or maps? They take a long time to load on dial-up, too. If anything, delete them. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a gallery of sovereign state flags. When we had an independent list of sovereign state flags (which was originally list of national flags), just like here there was no end of arguments over what to include. It was better to keep the lists and arguments syncronised in one article, rather than trying to build the same consensus twice. If a person is looking for a larger image then they can always click on the link of the one they wish to see. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting claims

In the article first it is claimed that states that satisfy the Montevideo criteria are listed, including those that lack international recognition. Further down however, all such states are taken apart and are not included in the main list, except for Taiwan, seemingly merely due to greater "popularity". Additionally, Somalia which hardly satisfies the Montevideo criteria is included in the list. This, people, is a joke. No matter what the text claims, this is not a list of states satisfying the Montevideo criteria. I suggest that the list be either adapted to fit the Montevideo criteria, or that reference to these be removed and the page be renamed to "List of Internationally Recognised states". Or better, we do both and have two lists. Sephia karta 19:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As there hasn't been any objection, I added the 7 additional states that satisfy the Montevideo criteria. Sephia karta 22:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason ROC is included it is a recgonized enity by many states. All of the ones you added are unrecognize by any countries BionicWilliam 00:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That is besides the point though. The definition chosen for this list follows a Declarative theory of statehood, namely the Montevideo Convention, and this means that recognition is irrelevant. This is not a list of UN members, such a list exists elsewhere. (Incidentally, the ROC is recognised by less states than the SADR and the state of Palestine.)

My post remained uncommented upon for 2 months. I ask that my changes remain unreverted unless and untill my points are refuted. Sephia karta 16:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Montevideo Convention is not relevant (who signed Montevideo convention?). International recognition is relevant. We should take out from the list all secesionist teritories and make an other list with them. Many of those territories are not de facto independent - for example Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria were created and maintained by Russian troops. I never heard that Georgia or Moldova signed the Montevideo Convention.--MariusM 15:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Listing these various dubious entities whose "independence" is entirely maintained by foreign armies seems highly problematic to me, and suggests POV pushing. Would we have included Bophuthatswana and Ciskei, as well? john k 16:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure enough the Russian army had and has its role in the creation and the survival of some of these states (not in Somaliland for one), but I don't see how that's relevant. If it wasn't for the US army, then we would never had a state of South Korea, and if you tried to define something such as *real* independance things would start to get really messy, think of statlets such as Vatican City, San Marino Monaco but also Somalia.

You are correct in saying that this article need not necessarily use the Montevideo Convention as the guiding criterium for sovereignity, it even need not follow a declarative theory of statehood. But it wasn't me who chose to use the Montevideo Convention. My original criticism was that you cannot begin your article saying that you will both include de jure and de facto countries, that you will use the Montevideo Convention as criterium only to completely disregard it subsequently.

Now there are 2 ways out of that mess, change the criterium or make the list fit the criterium. I personally like the Montevideo Criterium, I want to use a declarative theory of state so I chose the latter approach. If you say you want to have a list including only the states internationally recognised, despite the fact that it will be identical to the list of UN members + Vatican City, then you must create a new article for that. Alternatively, as a compromise we could have 1 article with 2 sub-lists: one for states sovereign according to both declarative and constitutive theories of state and one for states only sovereign according to the declarative theory.

My biggest problem with international recognition is that it is sort of POV. Recognised by whom? And how much recognition is enough? the SADR is recognised by a sleight of countries, it is a member of the African Union, does that count? Many of the unrecognised states do recognise each other, does that count? Why is something not a state only because of the official view of other states? If the state is a reality on the ground, if it can make you feel its power on its territory then isn't that much more of a impartial demonstration of stateness? Sephia karta 17:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that de facto statehood + widespread international recognition would be the thing to do. And no, Abkhazia's recognition of South Ossetia, or what not, doesn't count. Those states aren't even recognized by Russia, which props them up. I would add that I am quite dubious about the status of Transnistria and South Ossetia as de facto states with defined territory over which they have control. Only Somaliland really meets the standard (maybe North Cyprus, as well). john k 12:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

While I haven't been there, to my knowledge for its citizens Northern Turkey functions very much like your average state on a day by day basis. Transnistria and South Ossetia have to my knowledge a well defined territory which they control.

Not South Ossetia. Says the wiki article: "The Republic of South Ossetia is not a territorially contiguous entity. It is, instead, something of a checkerboard of Georgian-inhabited and Ossetian-inhabited towns and villages in an arc around the largely Ossetian city of Tskhinvali. The capital and most of the other Ossetian-inhabited communities are governed by the separatist government in Tskhinvali, while the Georgian-inhabited villages are governed by the Georgian government." This strikes me as a clear contender for "not qualifying under Montevideo." john k 16:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me first say that I am happy that we are discussing now whether a specific state meets the criterium we established for ourselves. I accept that South-Ossetia potentially does not meet the Montevideo criterium and that its inclusion is up to discussion, as long as we recognise that the outcome of the discussion has no effect on the inclusion of e.g. Somaliland. These cases are not all alike and ought to be judged seperately.

Apart from that however, I am not convinced that South-Ossetia does not meet subcriterium c). It says that a state need have "a defined territory". To me this means that the state continuously controls certain patches of land, regardless of their contiguousness. What is important imo is that there are certain towns and villages which clearly are under control of South-Ossetia. It seems to me that in this aspect South-Ossetia has the same amount of sovereignity as the state of Somalia. It's not very much, perhaps, but it's there. Sephia karta 13:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

They do not control all the territory that they claim is part of "South Ossetia", and they are unrecognized even by their patron, Russia. I'm pretty dubious. Somaliland and North Cyprus (and Nagorno-Karabakh?) are arguable cases. I'm highly dubious about Transnistria, Abkhazia, and especially South Ossetia. john k 13:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is true, but necessity to control all claimed territory is highly problematic imo. It is not required by the Montevideo convention and if we were to apply it, Georgia itself would fail the list, along with Argentinia, Marrocco, Japan, China, and Taiwan would fail spectacularily. I think the problem exists that having a list of sovereign countries necessarily involves a cut-off criterium and reduces the problem to a yes/no question thus ignoring the fact that 'independance', being one's own master, is a gliding scale. Ideally we would have a ranking of sovereign countries, with possibly the US on top and South-Ossetia trailing somewhere near to the bottom, but in absence of a feasable method to rank states thusly, the best we can do is choose a criterium defined as clearly as possible that seperates the weakly independant states from the not independant states, and at the same time indicate in the text when a state only barely meets the criterium. Sephia karta 13:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I can agree with this article containing two sublists, one containing states only sovereign according to the Montevideo Convention and one containing those states that also enjoy "widespread international recognition". But we need to clearly define this then. I suggest recognition by the UN, if such a thing exists. Sephia karta 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Recognition by the UN is problematic. That would mean that the Republic of China, which is clearly a sovereign state by every reasonable measure, would not count, but that Palestine and Western Sahara (iirc) would, despite not qualifying under Montevideo. john k 13:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The Palestine state and the SADR are not recognised by the UN I think (UN considers Western Sahara Spanish to be decolonised territory). I do believe the SADR qualifies under Montevideo due to controlling the 'Free Zone'. The ROC would indeed not be included on a list of internationaly recogised states, but that's the way it is, it is just not internationally recognised. Your expression that it is "clearly a sovereign state" appeals to the reality of its existence on the ground and I share that sentiment, for me it is reason to use a declarative theory of statehood. Apart from the fact that the ROC may be somewhat more salonfähig than Somaliland, these cases are essentially alike and I think we cannot have one without the other. Sephia karta 15:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Somaliland is not formally recognized by anybody, while the ROC 'is by some countries, at least, and used to be recognized by many more. The ROC is an existing de facto state which once had UN recognition and recognition by most countries in the world. That recognition was removed not because the status of the ROC itself changed, but because of countries' desires to have relations with the PRC. This seems a quite different situation from Somaliland, which has never been recognized as a sovereign state by anyone. john k 19:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You might be overlooking here that Somaliland was a (British) colony seperate from Italian Somalia and that as such it enjoyed a very short span of separate independance (recognised) before the two states united to form Somalia. It is on the basis of this that room has been seen for potential recognition of Somaliland by the African Union, not violating the principle that colonial borders be respected. But I guess that's besides your point, you're right, at the current moment Somaliland is not recognised by a single country while the ROC is (albeit by 5 hands full of minor states). The diplomatic situation is not the same, also because the ROC will have far more diplomatic contacts with the rest of the world than Somaliland. I guess I meant that Somaliland is as firm a state as is the ROC and it is not isolated. With the shambles that is Somalia, other countries treat Somaliland as a reality.Sephia karta 12:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Montevideo Convention

This convention was signed only by 19 countries, all in America: Honduras, United States of America, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Argentina, Venezuela, Uruguay, Paraguay, Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Chile, Peru, Cuba. See the convention. No European country signed this convention. How can some of you consider this convention as a serious thing? Regarding current debate about secessionist territories, China, Cyprus, Moldova, Georgia didn't sign this convention.--MariusM 17:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me who introduced the Montevideo Convention to this article, it has been used here for as long as I know this article. That's why I'm using it.

Secondly, I condider this to be a "serious thing", because it is a definition widely used in the field of international law. I'm no expert there but the original context of the Montevideo Convention is pretty much irrelevant, what matters is that it has become a standard. It is not as though this standard is legally binding to any country, and therefore it is irrelevant whether a specific state subscribes to the definition of a sovereign state used in the Montevideo Convention. As far as I know, in international law, ultimately, 'might makes right'. Every state can 'consider' and 'recognise' whatever it wants. To be considered a state sovereign under the Montevideo Convention does not grant a country any additional rights. Moldavia can consider the PMR sovereign under Montevideo and still vehementally oppose its right to exist. Sephia karta 14:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

At first, I thought that MariusM didn't know what he was talking about. However, he is being maliciously misleading because he knows better: See Talk:Montevideo Convention. The convention is a codification of standard practice of international law. International law applies worldwide, and the main principles of the convention are accepted by all countries except rogue states. In other words, its contents is not limited to just the signatories. With specific regards to Europe, the exact same principles are common in declarations from numerous European countries on recognition of states issues, and are shared by all. - Mauco 17:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)