Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Inclusion criteria

Just to play devil's advocate here, the CI's constitution was ammended in 1981 [1] to add: "There shall be a sovereign Parliament for the Cook Islands, to be called the Parliament of the Cook Islands", which is a pretty strong argument that the CI claim to be sovereign. However, I feel this is more an example of how our inclusion critera doesn't accurately reflect the title of the article, than a reason for inclusion of the CI. Perhaps the list could be moved to a more easily quantifiable title, such as List of internationally recognized states or something along those lines, as opposed to the inherently vauge "sovereign states". The international recognition could be based upon UN recognition (Member States + Non-Member States) while moving "Other states" to List of states with limited recognition, which we essentially duplicate anyways, with a brief comment and link. Alternatively we could list all states which are recognized by at least one foreign state. This would eliminate the need for us to establish our own inclusion criteria (which seems rather WP:ORish to me). Just a suggestion. Not sure if this has been discussed before. TDL (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with using UN recognition as a measure is that it leaves Vatican City out in the cold. VC's sovereignty and independence is non-controversial, but it is not a member of the UN. (Taivo (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC))

Vatican City, while not a UN member state, is recognized by the UN as a non-member state (ie a state which chooses not to be a member) so would be included in both the scenarios I proposed. TDL (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The UN is a political body with political opinions and political aims. It's recognition or non-recognition of several entities is based primarily on politics. For that reason I oppose UN recognition as an inclusion criterion on a neutral list of sovereign states. This is, in part, why we use wordings such as "general international recognition" rather than directly using UN recognition.

The big advantage of the current system is that it allows for entities such as Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia - which according to some POVs are just as legitmate as Brazil, Norway or Thailand - without acting as though they are generally internationally recognised. Pfainuk talk 11:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that using UN recognition as a criteria certainly has it's drawbacks, as states can be denied recognition by a single veto-wielding nation. Unfortunately, sovereignty is invariably political as it requires that it must be recognized by other political entities. However, the second proposal I made (recognition by at least one other state) would include Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia as all have some degree of international recognition. I think this would adaquetly cover most mainstream POVs.

The drawback of the current system is that we have to develop our own inclusion criteria which I believe violates WP:OR. For example WP:SYN states that

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[5] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Currently, we find sources that say a state has a population, territory, claims sovereignty, etc. and then conclude from this that the state is sovereign. If we only claimed to list recognized states then we wouldn't have to draw such conclusions. TDL (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That would still leave out entities such as Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria, that aren't recognised by any other state (except possibly one another, Abkhazia and South Ossetia) but undeniably exist nonetheless. Leaving them out would still take sides in those particular disputes.

I do not accept it as given that there was any fundamental change in the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008. The only thing that changed was that four countries took the political decision to recognise them. You state that sovereignty requires recognition - but this is not generally accepted. Under the declarative theory of statehood, the opposite is true: sovereignty is independent of recognition.

Making international recognition paramount brings with it its own problems. You are unlikely, in many cases, to find sources that say that the fact of some measure of international recognition implies sovereignty - leading you to exactly the problem you describe. You bring into the frame questions like the State of Palestine or the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, where we have to deal with distinctions just as fine as we do now with the Cook Islands and Niue. You have awkward cases, where recognition may be daisy-chained down from state to state. If Russia recognises Abkhazia, Abkhazia recognises Transnistria and Transnistria recognises Nagorno-Karabakh, does that constitute recognition for Nagorno-Karabakh? Would Nagorno-Karabakh belong on the list? It's certainly not clear-cut, and I can see arguments on both sides.

There is definite encyclopædic value in having a list of sovereign states. It's the sort of thing that you'd expect to find in the appendix of any reputable encyclopædia. But it is probably impossible to actually produce such a list without dealing to some extent in some form of original research, or without using apparently arbitrary limits at some point. There are so many complications, so many marginal cases, so many POVs that need to be allowed for, and we need to do it as best we can. The current system isn't perfect, but I'm not convinced that we can do it better. Pfainuk talk 13:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not proposing we claim that international recognition implies sovereignty. I'm saying we should simply have a List of internationally recognized states. This avoids the messy business of trying to decide what a sovereign state is (which as you correctly say is imposible without OR). And I'm not disputing the encyclopedic value of the content, but that doesn't excuse the need for verifiability.

I agree that nothing fundamentally changed with Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and SO, however as per Wp:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". It's impossible to verify (but may well be true) that SO is a sovereign state without doing OR. However, it's both verifiable and true that SO is an internationally recognized state.

Quite honestly, I'm not sure why Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria are on the list currently as I don't think that they satisfy the stated criteria. What capacity do these entities have to entire into bilateral relations if no other nation even recognizes their existance? Certainly not more than the Principality of Sealand, which is excluded. The Order of Malta, which considers itself sovereign, isn't a state so would not be included in a list of recognized states. I'm not sure what your concern with Palestine is. It has limited recognition and thus would be included. We could still have separate sections for states which had "general recognition" and "limited recognition". TDL (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Transnistria is recognized by Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so if you accept that those two are "internationally recognized" on the grounds that they're recognized by other internationally recognized states, then you would have to conclude that Transnistria is as well. And since Transnistria recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh, well, there you go. Somaliland is the only entity on this list which is flat out unrecognized. But Somaliland does have informal relations with a few neighbouring countries so I think that qualifies as "capacity to enter into relations with the other states". Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And if you exclude Nagorno-Karabakh since it's only recognized by a "marginally recognized" state (Transnistria), then you have, in essence, gone right back to using the UN as the criterion for inclusion. WP:OR is not a well-honed rapier, but a blunt club. No matter how hard you want to avoid the appearance of any actual thought going into writing a Wikipedia article, you cannot divorce the use of individual intellect from the matter. We are constantly evaluating sources as to whether they are WP:FRINGE along the lines of WP:UNDUE, etc. This is, whether it is called that or not, original research. What is being done here is nothing more than evaluating sources to determine the best definition for a list that is as objective as possible without relying on a single external, politically-motivated source (UN). Indeed, there was no question of Macedonia's sovereignty before it entered the UN, but its entry into the UN was stalled for a time because its dear neighbor Greece didn't like its name. (Taivo (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC))

The rule is "often regarded as" meeting the criteria - essentially that's there so as to avoid having editors making blanket judgements without evidence. It's relatively easy to find sources that explicitly suggest that Somaliland meets Montevideo (though it is disputed by those who oppose Somaliland independence: I would imagine the same could be said for all of these cases). The informal relations, plus the fact that Israel recently considered recognition would suggest meeting the requirement for foreign relations. It's not cast-iron, "often regarded as" isn't cast-iron either.

I think the point on Nagorno-Karabakh is quite important. NK is recognised by a state that is recognised by two states that are recognised by four states that are generally internationally recognised. Does that count? And if not, why not?

The problem with Palestine is that the State of Palestine was proclaimed by the PLO prior to the Oslo Accords. The extent to which a declaration made by the PLO can be applied to the Palestinian National Authority is unclear, particularly given that the de facto administration in Gaza is connected to the latter but not the former. There is a very real argument that the State of Palestine and the Palestinian National Authority are not the same thing, and that the one is not the government of the other. This argument would hold that the State of Palestine is in the same position as the SMOM: a sovereign actor without territory. Pfainuk talk 17:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to listing states recognized by "marginal states". In fact I think it is a good idea. As long as we define what it is we are attempting to list, there should be no issue. In fact, I quite like how List of states with limited recognition is organized. We could merge this article into that one, with an extra section entitled "Fully recognized states" or something along those lines. As for the issues with Palestine, all of what you said is verfiable. We could easily include a note stating just what you've said to cover both POV's.

I disagree with you about Somalialand's "capability to enter into relations with other states". Opening up an office in a foreign country only indicates that they desire relations with a foreign country. There is no evidence that this is reciprocated by the host country. Were these countries to establish offices in Somalialand, then you might have an argument. And I don't think the fact that Israel has considered recognized Somalialand is sufficient, especially since I've seen no sources which show that they actually have considered it. (All I've seen is a report from an Arab League meeting where they discussed their concern over rumors that Israel was considering recognition. If you have a source quoting Isralii officials on this matter than I will stand corrected.) Regardless, the mere fact that you stated "I think that qualifies" indicates to me that you are drawing conclusions from the sources. I presume you are a resonably intelligent person, and I feel that I am as well, and yet we drew opposite conclusions from the same facts, hence it's OR because you conclusion is not obviously deducible from the sources.

Again, I've never advocated UN membership as a criteria. So the argument about FYRM is not relavant. By my criteria, as soon as they were recognized by a single foreign state they would be included, in spite of a Greek UN blockade.

The problem with using terms such as "often regarded as" in our definition is that this is a WP:WEASEL word. Often considered by who? If we can't define the criteria without weasle words it is not verifiable. It seems like this part of the inclusion criteria is done on an ad hoc basis, since anything that doesn't meet this criteria can always be included by stating that it's not a hard and fast rule. Every instance of this would be OR if not sourced. TDL (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Professor Alain Pellet, a member and former President of the International Law Commission, just released a legal opinion which stated that it is not absurd to think that Palestine is a State within the general and usual meaning of the term.[2] The PNA already engages in foreign relations as the government of the State of Palestine:

• Costa Rica entered into bilateral relations with the State of Palestine when it signed an agreement with the representative of the Palestinian National Authority. See Perelman, Marc, Forward, March 07, 2008, Costa Rica Opens Official Ties With ‘State of Palestine’ [3]
• The Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority funds the existing institutions of the State of Palestine from donations made to support governance programs under the "Palestinian Reform and Development Plan (PRDP). The plan also funds public works throughout the Palestinian territory. All of the donors are providing funding for the development of the institutions of the State of Palestine, under the control and management of the PNA. Some of the donors, like Saudi Arabia and the Russian Federation, already recognize the State of Palestine. [4] [5]
• The President of the State of Palestine and the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Palestinian National Authority appoint the Ambassadors of the State of Palestine. See Ambassador Mustafa sworn in as the new Ambassador of the State of Palestine to the Russian Federation [6]
• On 29 January 2010, the representative of Palestine deposited a copy of a letter submitted by Prime Minister Fayyad with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The letter reported on the decree issued by Mahmoud Abbas, "President of the State of Palestine", concerning the formation of an independent commission to follow up on the Goldstone report in compliance with General Assembly resolution 64/10 of 5 November 2009. See See Report of the Secretary-General, UN Document A/64/651, 4 February 2010 para 5 and Annex II [7] harlan (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"UN Recognition"

In 1950 a suggestion was made that UN membership be adopted as a form of legal collective recognition, but the Secretary-General and Legal Affairs section advised that such a measure would require the adoption of an amendment to the UN Charter. See pages 39-48 of Statehood and the law of self-determination, By David Raič, Kluwer Law International, 2002, ISBN: 904111890X. The UN Charter contains no agreed upon definition of the term state. As result there is no such thing as UN recognition of statehood. Professor Alain Pellet recently noted that the ICJ has not been asked to recognize a state of Kosovo, only if its unilateral declaration of independence is in accordance with international law.[8]

In 1948, Syria proposed that an advisory opinion be obtained from the ICJ regarding Israel's statehood. Abba Eban pointed out that the UN had no such authority: "The act of determining whether a certain political unit is a State or not is known in international law as an act of recognition; and under the Charter, no Member State has surrendered to the United Nations or to any organ thereof its unlimited sovereignty to regard a political unit as a State. See the minutes of the 340th meeting of the UN Security Council, S/PV.340, 27 July 1948, page 12[9] The fact that the United Nations does not play a direct role in the recognition of states has been discussed on the Palestine and State Of Palestiine talk pages. Israeli legal expert Ruth Lapidoth explained that "it is not the UN's role, much less that of the Security Council, to confer statehood." See Lieberman warns against '67 borders, By Tovah Lazaroff, Jerusalem Post, November 14, 2009. In the Kosovo case the US argued that it was doubtful that Security Council resolutions were binding on non-state actors like Kosovo and that its statehood was inevitable because it had been recognized by 48 other countries.[10]

Bengt Broms has served as a Judge with the Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the ICC Court of Arbitration in Paris. He says that the record shows that, although statehood is a condition of membership in the United Nations, the fulfillment of that condition has never been a guarantee of admission. A candidate must fulfill the additional criteria set out in Article 4(1) of the UN Charter. He says in view of this it is clear that as the Members of the United Nations are not required to reveal the reasons for their negative votes, such a vote does not indicate that a candidate does not fulfill the requirements of statehood. The negative outcome of a vote may just as well result from the conclusion that, although an applicant is a State, it may not be peace loving or it may not fulfill the other requirements. See International law: achievements and prospects UNESCO Series, Mohammed Bedjaoui editor, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, ISBN 9231027166, page 47 [11]

Conversely many entities have been admitted as members of the United Nations while they were colonies (India), mandates (Syria and Lebanon), or not considered independent Philippines, Belorus, and Ukraine. The same holds true today for the so-called micro-states. Philip Jessup served as a representative of the United States to the United Nations and as a Judge on the International Court of Justice. During the Security Council hearings regarding Israel's application for membership in the UN, he said:

[W]e already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State. We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one's own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership.... ...The reason for which I mention the qualification of this aspect of the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law." See page 12 of S/PV.383, 2 December 1948

harlan (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, please: save it for DrorK. Nobody here is arguing against the legitimacy of the State of Palestine, Pfainuk was merely pointing out that such a debate exists. Nobody is going to tamper with its entry in the list.

Whether or not Somaliland fulfills the DTS criteria has already been discussed here, where the conclusion was that 1) no credible source claims that it doesn't; 2) plenty of credible sources claim that it does; 3) either way, as long as the opinion that it does fulfill the criteria exists, that POV should be represented. We're not going through that debate again without people reading that discussion first. Ethiopia has a consulate in Hargeisa (source).

I must make sure I have this right, so correct me if I'm wrong... You're proposing a change of inclusion criteria which would make foreign recognition the sole stipulation (i.e. using the constitutive theory of statehood); this would include a change of title. This list currently uses the declarative theory of statehood as its criteria, which means (first and foremost) that a state has to have declared independence, and have the required characteristics of a state (the 4 points).

The main problem I see with such a change is that recognition is (in most cases) politically motivated, which means states that exist in reality, but that are not recognised (like Somaliland), will be left out. This seems like it's ignoring reality. The main reason seen for Somaliland's non-recongition is a fear of stirring up tensions in a volatile country (certain groups in Somaliland have threatened to secede if independence from Somalia is recognised by foreign governments).

The list of states with limited recognition has always been a list that is supplementary to this one, not complimentary. They don't work side-by-side referring to different subjects. I don't see how this change would benefit anything. Night w (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) You imply that recognition plays no role under the declaratory theory. The United States is a signatory of the Montevideo Convention, but the Foreign Relations Law of the United States says that determinations regarding the existence of states are normally made by other states when they decide to treat an entity as a state. The fact that recognition is politically motivated does not alter its legal effects. The lawmakers in western societies are usually politicians, and recognition is a political prerogative. The UNESCO volume on international law that I cited above says that the criteria for recognition of statehood is mainly political, not legal. That is a significant viewpoint that ought to be mentioned in the article. As for "limited recognition" the article needs to mention the fact that many states no longer practice recognition, and that the lack of diplomatic relations does not mean that states do not recognize an entity as another state. P.S. The Foreign Relations Law of the United States does not require a state to actually engage in foreign relations, merely that it have the capacity to do so. harlan (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. In fact, that recognition is politically motivated is one of the main criticisms of the Constitutive Theory. Outback the koala (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Ethiopia's consulate in Somaliland Night. This is certainly a good argument in favour of their capacity for bilateral relations. In fact, it would probably be a good idea to mention this in the article under Somaliland's status (where we discuss international recognition for other states).

My real concern is less with the specific states which are included and more with how we decide who to include. I'm certainly not trying to dispute that DTS is a better definition of a sovereign state than CTS. There are certainly shortcomings with CTS (namley the politics involved). However, there are also issues with DTS (ie. micronations). The real issue is that there is no perfect defition of a sovereign state.

I was proposing we construct a List of internationally recognized states. There would be no claim that this implies they poses sovereignty, just that they are internationally recognized. As it stands now, we claim to be listing "sovereign states" when what we are actually listing are states which satisfy one defition of the state (DTS over CTS) using one (of presumably many) sets of criteria used to measure "statelike characteristics" (Montevideo Convention). In addition, the criteria are inherently vauge at best. For every state proposed, there is a discussion on the talk page to see if the criteria is satisfied. If there are no sources which explicitly state that the Montevideo Convention is satisfied than this violates WP:OR (WP:SYN). If we could find reliable sources which listed Montevideo Convention satisfying states, then I wouldn't be opposed to moving this to List of DTS satisfying states (I'll let someone cleverer than I come up with a better title). In fact, this would be a good compliment to a List of internationally recognized states. Each would present a list of states satisfying one of the defitions of a state. However, as it stands I don't think that we can claim that we list "sovereign states" when we use but one defition of a state. Nor do I think that it is verifiable that these countries satisfy the Montevideo Convention (at least not without the addition of reliable sources to the article which explicitly support this claim). So while I agree that the DTS might be more "accurate" than the CTS, as I mentioned above WP:V states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". TDL (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

So under your proposal this page would become somewhat of a soft redirect, or a non-existent page altogether? It's an interesting proposal. However, let me ask you; When users come to wikipedia looking for a 'list of countries' or what-have-you, most would likely prefer to have all the information in one place, like other encyclopedias. Perhaps you might concider altering your proposal to say instead make a new list page that, like the list of states with limited recognition page, could be supplementary, but not complimentary as stated above. Although more details would need to be worked out, it's certainly something worth discussing (not sure yet if I could support it though). I wonder, however where this would leave the SMOM. Plus I'd like to hear from other editors on this hopefully. Outback the koala (talk) 06:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW I also firmly believe in having no preference between DTS and CTS on wikipedia. WP:NPOV must be maintained after all. Outback the koala (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, presuming that a DTS list could be properly sourced, I'd see this page become somewhat of a disambiguation page, briefly explaining the two definitions and linking to both. Alternatively, we could try and include both lists on a single page, which as you point out would have the advantage of presenting the info all in one place. However, I worry that this might get messy. I could be convinced either way though. In the first scenario, SMOM would fit in nicely on the disambiguation page. TDL (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal is certainly interesting, but it sounds like a whole lot of unnecessary to me. There does exist a generally accepted definition of what a state is, and I can't see us deviating from that. Outback is right in saying that this will just confuse readers—and for no reason aswell (there'll be little difference between the two lists). Night w (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Outback--this is becoming a game without regard to usability. Wikipedia's OR and SYN restrictions are not designed to prevent reasonable editors from exercising their brains to create articles that are useful to readers. They are there to prevent undue influence on the fringe theories. There is nothing fringe about an easily-accessible list of sovereign states that one can find in any atlas or geographical reference. The average user of Wikipedia doesn't know or care about DTS or CTS--it's an intellectual parlor game best left there--in the parlor. (Taivo (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC))

I think the current set-up gives us a wonderfully useful article. It reflects both the CTS and the DTS. It gives the criteria commonly cited under CTS, and lists all entities in the world which are generally seen to fulfil these criteria, something which is a verifiable fact. And it divides up the states according to recognition, something which the CTS does not care about, but the DTS does. So we have everything in one comprehensive article. I really think that the spirit of WP:IAR applies here: doing away with this article, even if it is not perfect with respect to WP:SYN, would be a disservice to the encyclopaedia and its readers.sephia karta | dimmi 14:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with the comment above by Sephia karta. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what's been said. I do see that there are legitimate and reasonable concerns as regards OR, but I think we risk getting too far into the technicalities of the thing and losing sight of the big picture. I agree fundamentally with Sephia Karta - a list such as this, encompassing both theories, is good for the encyclopædia. Pfainuk talk 21:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I hate to repeat myself, but there seems to be some confusion over what my concerns with the article are. I'm not claiming the article isn't useful or accurate. So arguments such as this don't address the issue (see WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:VALINFO, WP:IKNOWIT). I'm merely arguing that the metric we use to construct the list should be verifiable. My proposal was but one possible way to accomplish this. (One which I admitted was not perfect). Lots of other solutions exit, and I'd be happy to consider others ideas. Another possibility is that we could change our "Inclusion criteria" section to something like "Defintions of a state" where we could discuss the different ways such a list could be created. Then, as opposed to claiming that we judge each state against our criteria, we could quote RS's which claim that a state satisfies A criteria. If, as Taivo suggests, this list can be easily verified by looking at "any atlas or geographical reference" then let's use that atlas as our inclusion criteria since it's verifiable.

Basically the arguments against change fall into one of two catigories:

1) The OR in this article is an example of reasonable editors making reasonable deductions from the facts.

2) The encyclopedia would be significantly worse off if we didn't construct the list as we currently do (ie IAR).

On the first point I disagree that deducing that a state has the "capacity to enter into relations with the other states" from the provided sources is an obvious process. On the second, I see no reason why a list which was constructed using a RS's judgement of sovereignty as opposed to our own judgment would be demonstratable worse. And the fact that it would be verifiable would make it significantly better.

Finally, I find it hard to accept that the list, as currently constructed, reflects the different definitions of a state since we explicitly use the Montevideo Convention as our inclusion criteria. (And I certainly disagree with Night that "a generally accepted definition of what a state is" exists. As this article itself states "Compiling a list such as this can be a difficult and controversial process"). If the intent of the article is to list states which satisfy the Montevideo Convention OR are internationally recognized then this should be mentioned in the "Inclusion criteria" section. If this was done then I'd certainly be in complete agreement that both defitions are properly represented. TDL (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: I added a note here soliciting opinions. TDL (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And another thing...

Now that the inclusion criteria has actually come into question, I'm going to mention a change I'd like to see made. In the text of the inclusion criteria, should it not use the "declarative theory of statehood", rather than the "Montevideo Convention"? I realise the two are basically the same, so it wouldn't affect the criteria. I also realise the benefit—or at least the greater political significance—of using a legally codified source, but the issue is that only a small portion of states (less than 10%) are party to Montevideo; therefore, the inclusion of entries in this list is subject exclusively to the viewpoint of those signatory states (none of which, by the way, are listed on this page). This could be in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I've brought it up recently on this talk page. Night w (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Political Considerations

The idea that states are using either the declarative theory or constitutive theory is very outdated. So is the notion that the declarative school doesn't take recognition by other states into consideration as a factor when making legal determinations regarding the status of an entity. The United States is a contracting party to the Montevideo Convention. The Restatement (Third) of The Foreign Relations Law of the United States section 201.(h) says "Determination of Statehood. Whether or not an entity satisfies the requirement for statehood is determined by other states when they decide whether to treat that entity as a state. Ordinarily, a new state is formally recognized by other states".

The United Nations published a series of essays on the subject which explains that there is no agreed upon legal criteria regarding statehood. The essays advance the widely-held view that the granting of recognition has become a legal-political solution in which the political element weighs heavier than the legal element. See International law: achievements and prospects UNESCO Series, Mohammed Bedjaoui editor, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, ISBN 9231027166, pages 47-48 [12] That viewpoint is not represented in these Wikipedia articles. harlan (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So what would you change or add to make that viewpoint represented? The statement by the U.S. government arguably sums up the reality: because there is no universal doctrine on the subject, concluding what is and what isn't a state is left entirely up to the foreign policies of each state (and opinions will differ from government to government). Therefore, formal recognition is extended when one state decides the entity has met their preconditions (in the case of the U.S., it's officially the Montevideo criteria) to become a state of its own. Article 3 of Montevideo states that recognition plays no part in the existence of a state, which is of course true to reality (no state recognises Somaliland, but it undoubtedly exists from the public's perspective). But recognition certainly plays a part if a state is to become a subject of international law, or "treated as a state" by others. While some individual policies on the subject may blatantly reflect either the CTS or the DTS (e.g. as the Swiss government's policy does with the DTS), no government officially uses these theories in their raw form, and nowhere on Wikipedia has it been stated otherwise. Night w (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should describe the various viewpoints without endorsing them. I've added a main article and sync template to the article. The Sovereign state article explains that recognition is based mainly on political factors and that any existing state can accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or an established government. It also explains that recognition can either be express or implied; can be retroactive in effect; and does not signify a desire to establish or maintain diplomatic relations. This article implies that diplomatic recognition is a sine qua non, but recognition can be granted without establishing legations. The Sovereign state article also has a section which explains that many states no longer practice recognition. This article is fine, but should contain some caveats or disclaimers. harlan (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Declarative Theory

Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention did not say that a state should be "sovereign", that the government had to "exercise effective control", or that it had to "engage in foreign relations". Those are non-binding accretions of various publicists that have always been rejected by the PCIJ, the ICJ, and many of the signatories - including the United States. Both Courts have ruled that states can exist for very long periods of time without a government that exercises effective control, without a well defined territory, and (as a consequence) without an agreed upon body comprising the permanent population.

The ICJ explained that in the North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark) proceedings (joined with North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands) on 26 April 1968). It said

There is for instance no rule that the land frontiers of a State must be fully delimited and defined, and often in various places and for long periods they are not, as is shown by the case of the entry of Albania into the League of Nations (Monastery of Saint Naoum, Advisor): Opinion, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 9, at p. 10).[13]

Between 1912 and 1920, the government of Albania did not exercise effective control, had no defined territory, and there was no agreement as to whether or not the Serb and Greek communities and their armed forces were part of the permanent population, occupying powers, or residents of a neighboring territory. The PCIJ opinion said:

Albania, which had in the first place been established as a principality under the sovereignty of the Prince of Wied, became a Republic in 1914; but the Great War prevented the complete fixing of the frontiers of the new State, which was also invaded by the belligerent armies. When the Peace Conference met at Paris in 1919, it considered that it was competent to deal with the Albanian question amongst others. From 1920 onwards, Albania entered into relations with the League of Nations, to which it asked to be admitted. This request was granted by a decision taken by the Assembly of the League of Nations in December 1920. The Resolution regarding its admittance expressly reserved the question of the settlement of the frontiers of the new Member State. Having been admitted to the League of Nations, Albania brought before the Council the question of the evacuation of its territory — as fixed by the Conference of London of 1913—by the Serbian and Greek troops. This question made urgent that of the settlement of the frontiers; for Serbia and Greece maintained that the Principal Powers were alone competent to deal with the latter," whereas Albania contended that the League of Nations, as successor to the European concert of nations, should possess this competence. The Assembly of the League of Nations, however, by its unanimous vote of October 2nd, 1921, left the task of settling the Albanian frontiers to the Principal Powers, recommending Albania to accept then and there the forthcoming decision of the Powers on this subject.[14]

Notwithstanding all of that, Wikipedia has an article which says Albania proclaimed its independence and was established in 1912. harlan (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What would you change specifically then? Can you give us some kind of proposal to look at? Night w (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen some remarks which say that the UN is a political organization and should only be cited with caution. But the members of the LoN and UN did task the International Courts with responsibility for settling disputes regarding international law. The Courts have implicitly rejected the Montevideo criteria. The EC/EU have also adopted criteria for recognition of statehood in Central Europe and the former Yugoslavian states that were based upon political considerations, like treatment of minorities, and etc. that are not based upon Montevideo. I'm suggesting that some brief caveats and disclaimers be added. harlan (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Consistency in lists

I'm finding some pretty big gaps in consistency when it comes to lists of this subject–specifically in regard to unrecognised states. If there is a List of sovereign states by ..., then shouldn't it be that whatever entries are displayed here, are also mirrored on the rest? It just seems a bit confusing–not to mention (in my opinion) majorly biased. I'm currently looking at List of state leaders by date, where editors have selected some unrecognised states to include, but not all. Is there any way to make this list used as a "template" when it comes to lists of this kind? Night w (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't seem to be getting any talkback from editors on the above-mentioned page; just keep getting reverted. Anyone from here want to give their two-cents? Night w (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit needed

Dear Admin: Since the article is protected, please change the last line of the South Ossetia section of Other states from:

Claimed in whole by the [[#G|Republic of Georgia]] as the [[South Ossetia#Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia|Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia]].<ref name="cnnAbSO" />

to:

Claimed in whole by the [[#G|Republic of Georgia]] as the [[Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia]].<ref name="cnnAbSO" />

to reflect the move of the relevant material from the South Ossetia article to an independent article. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 02:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

edit war (Taiwan redirect)

Since all states that are included in the additional list at the end are put in the main table, I see no reason to remove Taiwan. Please give a reason why Taiwan and not the other states should be removed. Griffinofwales (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous; What makes Taiwan so special that it is being removed in an ongoing fashion? I can only see Ao333 (talk · contribs) making an issue out of this. Please discuss content removal here. Outback the koala (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That editor has just been blocked. Night w (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Abkhazia Typo

Claimed in whole by the Republic of Georgia as the Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia.[48]

I don't know if this a copypasta mistake but I presume this should say it is claimed by Georgia under the exile Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. Urpunkt^☎ 02:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a typo. Could you explain a little further why this is a more accurate description of the Abkhazian situation? Would it not make more sense to present the federal Georgian Gov as claiming the state in whole? Outback the koala (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Because as is it says that Abkhazia is claimed as part of the South Ossetian unit... They are different areas which don't overlap. Urpunkt^☎ 02:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that when the Administrator made the edit requested here, he applied it to Abkhazia as opposed to South Ossetia. I left a note on the admin's talk page requesting a correction. TDL (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhhh, easy oversight... I was wondering why it wasnt clicking for me. Outback the koala (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Corrected. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Languages to be used under listings

What are the guidelines for listing languages under states for this list? I'm not sure if it is consistent and I see some editor saying one thing while others say differently. Does anyone know which is which? Outback the koala (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

While the intro says that only official languages are used, many of the entries also include major minority languages of that country as well, especially when the majority of people in the country might not speak the official language. Some important historical languages of that country are also sometimes included. The list should not include, for example, the Spanish name of Kenya, but including Hungarian in Romania and Serbia, Spanish in the Philippines (and in the United States), etc. are quite appropriate. If only "official" languages are included, then no name should be used for the United States since there is no official language here. (Taivo (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

Sounds good, I would agree with that. Btw, we have english for everyone anyway since were en wikipedia... So the US would be covered in that case. Outback the koala (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Right now, the USA entry lists only English. At the very least it should also include French and Hawaiian, which are legally recognized in the states of Louisiana and Hawaii, respectively. Spanish would also be appropriate for its official status in Puerto Rico and its de facto status in New Mexico. Fishal (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally support that. I don't know those languages or else I'd have added at least Spanish a long time ago. (Taivo (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

For state listings like Sierra Leone, do we have to specify English underneath? It seems unnecessary, I would prefer to have that removed leaving only other languages listed, as is the case, for example, with Spain currently. Outback the koala (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the listing in English is default for every state, I don't think it needs duplicating. (Taivo (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

I just realized, seeing this edit that the heading for the table does in fact say "Name in English and the official languages of the state". Maybe we should revisit this. Perhaps it would be simpler to indicate when English is an official language without duplicating the whole state name. In addition, I would say the USA is an exception as it lacks any federally recognized language. I can see that the inclusion of a major minority language can be a real sticking point - I've seen removals over the last few weeks ad nausium (all rvted by editors, fear not!) - so we should we should really indicate when we use a major minority language that does not have official status in that state. (Take a look at Hungary for an example where we list German or Slovakia where we list Hungarian, respectively) Or maybe an option might be to not include them at all? Thoughts? Outback the koala (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "only official languages" is that it is a criterion that is politically motivated in some states and practically motivated in others and ignored in others. In the United States, there is no official language. Indeed, the bilingual laws in the U.S. pretty much mean that Spanish is an ad hoc official language in many areas because it is prescribed by law to be included, while English is never prescribed as an official language since it's assumed (without legal status) to be the language that is the default one. "Official status" also ignores many important minority languages in some countries that have an important historical status but are politically "deselected" (such as Hungarian in Romania). Indeed, Russian is a major language of Ukraine (spoken by around 50% of the population, in fact), but as is seen by the constant vandalism on city pages of eastern Ukraine (where the Russian variant of the city's name is constantly being removed even though 90% of the population of that city speaks Russian), it's a politically sensitive issue even though the current president will make a political move soon to raise its status in the country. The German entry at Hungary was a "revenge" entry because of the Hungarian entry at Romania. It's silly. I would support some wording that perhaps has a percentage of population threshold for "major minority status", but to simply use legal status as a measurement will mask certain information that I believe is important. (Taivo (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

I agree, we really need a cutoff percentage. Say 5 or 10%? Outback the koala (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For the inclusion in this list, there should be some usage of the terms in official publications (no matter if the language is an official language in the country of in a region of it, or a world language, like English). Without official usage (in some official publications), this page will becomes a collection of unreliable and irrelevant translations of official names, done by Wikipedia users, and that's not acceptable. Alefbe (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Editors generally have a good feel for what constitutes a major minority or historically significant minority. The list is not out of hand. (Taivo (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

What is the percentage cut-off? Griffinofwales (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No exact percentage has ever been defined although 5-10% is probably reasonable. --Taivo (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan

...all 193 widely recognised sovereign states...? 193? All except for Taipei? --Chargin' Chuck (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. 192 members of the United Nations, plus Vatican City makes 193. The Republic of China is only recognized by 23 states so it doesn't count as "widely recognized". Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Lakota

The Republic of Lakota claims independence from the US and a few countries are actually considering recognizing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.15.206 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Lakotah does not independently administer any terrtiory so it fails to satisfy the inclusion criteria. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, a sepratist movement must have outright control over at least a portion of its claimed territory and have declared independence before it can be considered a state under the criteria presented.XavierGreen (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No countries are considering recognizing it. Don't come here and blatantly lie to us. john k (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with John. There are no RS anywhere that say this. Outback the koala (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Lebanon: long form name

I think the balance of reliable sources strongly points towards "Lebanese Republic" as the long form name. See my remarks at Talk:Lebanon#Long form name. john k (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

To add to all those sources, the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names uses "Lebanese Republic". Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Languages in the List

I refer to the UK entry and the text reading:

"Irish: Ríocht Aontaithe na Breataine Móire agus Thuaisceart Éireann Scots: Unitit Kinrick o Great Breetain an Northren Ireland Cornish: Ruwvaneth Unys Breten Veur hag Iwerdhon Gledh"

On what basis are these languages listed? English is the only language official in all parts of the UK. Walsh has official status in Wales ... but the others - they probably enjoy less 'official' status than, for example, Basque or Catalan in Spain...but yet they are listed....This seems inconsistent and misleading. They are not official languages in the UK. Recognition as national minority languages or some such for the purposes of an EU charter (like Basque or Catalan and others) does not make them official languages...They may become official languages in the futhre. Notably, there is a campaign in Northern Ireland to make Irish an official language but that is crystal ball stuff. Please can we reach a consensus to remove these entries. We could discuss also whether and on what basis 'Walsh' should be listed. The discussion should take place in the context of the criteria generally applied to all countries - not just the UK. So, for example, it would be inappropriate to treat UK different to Spain etc. Thanks. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Not all languages on this list have official status. Unofficial minority languages are also included. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Cornish is certainly not a "major minority language", it should not appear on the list.

"Name in English, the official languages and major minority languages of the state" Under this definition Cornish should be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, this is nonsense. If the criteria is that it must be a "major minority language" - in the case of the UK, Hindi and or Urdu or Chinese have far greater entitlement to be listed than say Scottish Gaelic or Irish....Real 'bona fide' criteria is needed here. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the heading of this discussion to "Languages in the List" as clearly the UK is not the only entry where there are odd languages included. BritishWatcher has pointed out that Spanish and French are included for the US entry. I think only English should be listed. It is the only official language. Some one said that English is not the official language of the UK in response - this is the sort of nonsense that is trotted out without much thought. The UK has an unwritten constitution. Part of it is that English is its official language....The same goes for the US (save that it has a written constitution but it is silent on official languages). Does any one want to suggest criteria dealing with the inclusion of languages in the list? I will suggest this as the critheria;;Only languages that are legally official in the national/federal institutions of the state shuld be included This would be a simple criteria. It would be easy to verify in each case and reduce the scope for POV pushing. Any support or other suggestions? 84.203.69.86 (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A fairly stable set of criteria have been working for many months now--include 1) official languages (if any--the US has no official language, for example); 2) majority language (that's where English comes into the US entry); 3) significant minority or semi-official (regionally official) languages (Spanish and French in the U.S., Hungarian in Romania, Welsh et al. in the U.K.). Just as it's really impossible to come up with any criteria for what dependent entities to include (other than eliminating all of them) that are 100% clear and consistent, so, too, it's not really possible to come up with some sort of language list that is completely acceptable for every country. There are 192 sovereign U.N. member states on this list and just as there are 192 different legal statuses of primary units (not to mention other categories of dependency), there are 192 different ways that "official language" can be measured. In the U.S., for example, the laws governing the publication of documents include many language requirements that give each of these languages almost semi-official status in particular regions--for example, Chinese, Arabic, Hmong, Navajo, Hawaiian, and others all fall into this category. Wikipedia's tried and true method of discussion and consensus-building is really the best means available. It's too easy for this discussion to turn nastily nationalistic if some hard and fast rules are proposed for either dependencies or languages. As a linguist, I've seen many, many examples of reference works out there that fudge on these types of lists and include things for one country that would not be included (following the same rules) for some other country. --Taivo (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) It is nonsense to say the USA does not have an official language. In the same way it would be nonsense to say that UK does not have a constitution. The UK does not have a written constitution. The US does not have anything which written down as its offical language but English is its official language. (2) You refer to "significant minority" languages as being a criteria for inclusion but the list absolutely does not reflect that. The list includes languages like "Cornish" but ignores "Urdu" (in the case of the United Kingdom). How is this so? Far, far more people speak Urdu than Cornish (an extinct language). You have completely left that point unaddressed. (3) Re. "Just as it's really impossible to come up with any criteria for what dependent entities to include (other than eliminating all of them) that are 100% clear and consistent, so, too, it's not really possible to come up with some sort of language list that is completely acceptable for every country." That simply is not true. There are no states that I am aware of that we could not identify their official language. Please name one (your USA example, being, as I say, not according with basic facts). (4) Re. "Wikipedia's tried and true method of discussion and consensus-building is really the best means available." Absolutely, I agree. Hence this why this discussion could be very worthwhile. Finally, I note you are a linguist. But clearly, what should be relevant here is law - what are the national official languages of the states concerned. That should be the criteria. Other views? 84.203.69.86 (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Also - You refer to Navajo and Walsh etc and whether these can be included or not - These are not official languages of the State concerned. They are simply regional languages accorded official status in regions or for selected national purposes. My simple criteria - Only languages that are legally official in the national/federal institutions of the state shuld be included - would render their inclusion inappropriate. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on your "simple criteria", the United States and United Kingdom don't get to keep English. Your criterion requires that languages be "legally official". There being no law designating English as the official language in the national/federal institutions of the United Kingdom and United States, English is pretty clearly not "legally official" in those institutions.

Note further that UK national institutions will readily use languages other than English in some situations. Parliament conducts some of its formalities in Anglo-Norman, for example - a hangover from the days when all legal business was conducted in that language. Pfainuk talk 20:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pfainuk. If the "simple criterion" is legality, then the U.S. doesn't get English. Show me the article of the Constitution or the Act of Congress that has made English legally official. You won't find it. In fact, Spanish has more official legal status than English does since there are laws on the books which require the printing of government documents in Spanish, and, locally, in other languages as well. English is the de facto language of the American government, but there is no act of Congress or article of the Constitution which makes it legally so. We're just not going to find a simple universal criterion or set of criteria which will work in every case. The reason that Cornish is listed for the UK and not Urdu is that Cornish is a historical language of the U.K. If you want to delete it, then do so and if no one reverts your deletion, then fine. I don't think it really belongs there, but I'm a bit more inclusive-minded than other editors. I don't think Urdu belongs because it doesn't have a historical presence in England. I also think that Chinese and Arabic don't belong in the U.S. entry even though there are millions of speakers of each in the U.S. An argument could be made for a historical presence of Chinese in the U.S., but Spanish and French have much stronger arguments for their historical presence and their regionally official status. It's all about discussion and agreement, not rigid, inflexible rules that cannot be applied equally well in all cases. --Taivo (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed Cornish, its questionable if the others belong there with the exception of Welsh which is certainly a major minority language but we will see how people feel about Cornish being removed for now, that was the main one certainly out of place for the UK. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Especially since it was nearly extinct by the time that the current incarnation of the U.K. came into existence. The next one to go should be Irish since the language is nearly extinct in Northern Ireland if not completely extinct there. It hasn't been a major minority language in Northern Ireland for at least 100 years. --Taivo (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is absolute nonsense to say English is not an official language in the UK or US. You are each totally ignoring that the UK has an unwritten constitution. Aspects of the US constitution are not written too. Even if you refuse to accept my clear criteria - there is no reason why the fact that these are the official languages of these states withouth being prescribed in any law as being official cannot be noted in the notes to the page. BritishWatcher - Your comment above is pretty disappointing - You 'knock-off' Cornish leaving Irish and "Scots" and ignore that Urdu and Chinese and Hindi and Polish are "major minority languages" in the UK. The inclusion of languages should be according to a criteria. Currently, it is based on willy nilly nonsense. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There are other descriptions of these languages that we can use - we can say that English is the administrative language of both countries, for example - but it is inaccurate to call it the "official language" without some evidence that it has been adopted as such.

There is, as things stand, a clear preference for languages that are used traditionally as opposed to immigrant languages. I don't think this is a bad thing in general as per the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages - but leads to obvious issues with countries outside Europe and Asia. In general, I think we have to accept the fact that a one size fits all system simply isn't going to work. Too many countries in too many situations. Pfainuk talk 21:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A one size fits all - sticking to the official languages (and where there is no law stating that a language is the official language, a note around the point - as in US/UK - very few other examples) would work just fine. You just don't like the idea of sticking to the legalistic objective approach of sticking to official languages. Instead we will have all this POV like listing Cornish and Irish for the UK, or Spanish for the USA and French for the USA too! No one, I think, has offered me any support for my view that critieria are needed. Instead we will have the nonsense of one standard being applied to one country, say the US where immigrant languages are noted, no immigrant languages noted for another state but extinct or near extinct languages listed for another - UK (Cornish/Irish etc) and languages spoken by millions, like Visaya in the Philippines not listed at all...Its all just Western-centric inconsistent nonsense...but there you go, no one is supporting me. If we stick to legally official languages, the same objective criteria can be applied to all. People harp on about the USA and UK - these are 2 of 193 sovereign states! If they and a few others have no law saying what their official language is, a note can handle the matter. The tail should not wag the dog etc. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right, anon IP, that there is a solid consensus against your suggestions and in favor of keeping the status quo as it is. --Taivo (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I would go so far as to say there is a "solid consensus" - after all, I disagree with the having no criteria! 84.203.69.86 (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Solid consensus" doesn't mean the same as unanimity. It means 9-1 rather than 5-4. --Taivo (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Philippines

I note that no one supports introducing criteria for the inclusion of languages in the list. Accepting that that is the position, it comes down to looking at individual entries and seeing if they are reasonably ok. One entry that seems really out-of-order at the moment is the entry for the Philippines. Please see Languages of the Philippines. There are many languages that are very widely spoken by many of its 93 plus million population - far more widely spoken than, say, "Hawaian" (listed for the USA) or "Irish" (listed for the UK). How are we to determined which of the Philippines' langauges should be listed? Should all of its 120 languages be listed (that seems like it would be a bit excessive)? Should only those languages spoken by a certain percentage or more (% to be discussed) be included? Or should we simply take some sort of inconsistent approach and refuse to list any of the Philippines' languages other than legally official languages? Finally, why is Spanish listed for the Philippines (I don't believe it is official or that it is spoken by significant numbers there or that it is indigenous either). Thanks. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You have totally misrepresented the consensus here. There are criteria here, just not the tight one that you propose. The criteria are somewhat flexible and based on discussion. It's more case-law rather than fixed and immutable law. But don't say that there are no criteria. That's your own talking point, not the reality. Since there are over 192 separate realities, most of us are comfortable with taking some general criteria and applying them specifically. You seem to be the only one that has a problem with flexibility in the name of usefulness. Taking the Philippines as an example, Tagalog/Filipino is official, English is official, Spanish is historically official, other languages might be listed based on significant minority status (no one has ever proposed listing all minority languages). We've generally looked at about 5-10% as a cutoff for "significant minority". Few of the Philippines' languages will reach that level of usage. Perhaps Cebuano. But generally we wait for someone to add a language to decide whether it is appropriate or not. If you think that the Philippines needs some work, then knock yourself out and revise it. If it's deemed to be appropriate, then it will be accepted by consensus. If it's just pointy and not useful, then it will be rejected by consensus. But since you probably don't speak or know any of the languages in question, I'm assuming that your argument is just to make a point. Hawaiian is semi-official in Hawaii and I've already stated that Irish should be eliminated from U.K. That's the process here--propose, discuss; or Wikipedia's common process--edit, revert, discuss. --Taivo (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You say there is criteria - I cannot decipher it - I would be obliged if you would set it out.

What does "The criteria are somewhat flexible and based on discussion." actually mean?

What does "It's more case-law rather than fixed and immutable law." - What cases? What principles have been established? What does any of that mean?

Re. "Taking the Philippines as an example, Tagalog/Filipino is official, English is official [AGREED]...Spanish is historically official [Does that mean that former colonial laguages should be listed - is that a criteria? Please give a clear answer. If affirmative, the list needs more work to pick this up across the list....or are we just going to pick and choose which colonial languages get listed....if so, on what basis?]

Re. "We've generally looked at about 5-10% as a cutoff for "significant minority"." Good - That sounds logical enough - so how on earth do you then justify listing "Hawian" (for USA) or "Walsh" or "Scots" (for UK). Is there any consistency? The existence of criteria would suggest some element of consistency but we seem a long way from that. Please set out your criteria.

Re. listing all languages etc. For clarity, I have never suggested all languages should be listed. I am proposing that objective criteria, clearly set out so we can all discuss it, should be discussed. If there are exceptional circumstances where the criteria can be departed from, we could then discuss it on a case by case basis.

Re. me doing work on the Philippines entry - I don't speak the languages - I just went to the Tagalog Philippines talk page but it is very inactive and I think its likely to be a long time before I could get Filipino editors to provide apt. translations of "Republic of the Philippines" in the various languages...But I will start the work on the Philippines entry by deleting Spanish - its being listed there seems to me to be entirely without grounding - German is not listed as a language for France although German was an offical language in most or all of France (and many other European countries) for a short period (much longer int he case of some of its Departments) for example. Similarly, english was official in many parts of China for a time (in the case of Hong Kong only a few years ago - but it would frankly be offensive to list it there now...etc. The same logic applies to all ex-colonies etc. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

We've laid this out before: 1) official languages, 2) majority languages, 3) significant (generally non-immigrant) minority languages, 4) languages with some kind of semi-official or regionally official status, and 5) historically significant languages. But it's all subject to discussion and variation based on each country's unique situation. I disagree with your deletion of Spanish from the Philippines. Spanish was a significant language there until the latter half of the 20th century and there is still much Spanish influence in Filipino, place names, creoles and pidgins, etc. If other editors here disagree, then I'll follow consensus. I let the deletion of German for Hungary go because even though Hungary was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the German language never really made any inroads there and Hungarian remained the primary official language of Hungary. There is little remaining German influence in Hungary or in the language situation in Hungary (placenames, etc.). Hawaiian is 1) historically significant in Hawaii (it was a Kingdom), and 2) influential in Hawaii. What you are not getting anon IP, is that every single situation is going to be different to some extent. You're trying to build something inflexible and you can't do that with lists such as this. There are over 192 different, individual situations. The consensus here is that we are OK with that flexibility. You're the only one trying to make it inflexible. --Taivo (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't say Irish is historically significant in Northern Ireland? Night w (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I might, but I'm not tied to a position on that. --Taivo (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Notably User:Taivo has just reverted a change I made to the Philippines entry - I removed the Spanish entry. Spanish is not official in the Philippines and it is not a "significant minority language". "Russian" is not listed for "Estonia" (perhaps it should be on a "significant minority basis"? but no one is suggesting it should be listed because it is the former colonial language. I have reverted Taivo's change so that Spanish is no longer listed under the Philippines. Does any one disagree with my approach? See also the discussion re the criteria (mentioned above by Taivo - whic is really a separate discussion as it has far greater application than to simply the Philippines entry).84.203.69.86 (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion of languages Q+A

I think it would help us develop more consistency as regards which languages to include / exclude if we discuss the criteria (hope thats not a dirty word around here) on which decisions are made, so here goes (this list may grow - feel free to add to it)

---

1. Where a state (or part of a state) has more than one official language, do all legally official languages need to be listed (e.g. any language that is official in a particular region but not in the entire state)?
2. Do all languages spoken by 5% or more of the population of the state get listed?
3. For clarity, do any "immigrant" languages spoken by 5% or more get listed?
4. Where applicable, does the language that was the official language during the period when the state was a colony get listed (even if it is no longer official or meets the 5% population threshold)?
5. Where applicable to the relevant European state, does each language attributable to that state which is recognised/protected under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages get listed?

---

If the answer is known straight off - a simple "Yes" or "No" would suffice in response. Where the position is not clear, lets discuss. Of course, there usually are exceptions too and we can discuss those also. Lets take the mystery out of this process - there should be no need to "read tea leaves" to decipher which language is apt. for inclusion and which are not. Thanks. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User: Taivo has responded (full text above) to say that the followign are the criteria:

1. "official languages,
2. majority languages,
3. significant (generally non-immigrant) minority languages,
4. languages with some kind of semi-official or regionally official status,
5. historically significant languages."

and beyond that, the entries are subject to discussion etc (see his post above). The above criteria are so unclear as to be unsusable. User Taivo - Please could you respond to the specific questions set out above or elaborate on what you mean by this 5 point cirtieria. Although, I will largely be repeating the questions set out above, I will point out further where/why the above "criteria" (if it could be called that) is inadequate:

1. Re. "official languages" - Where a state (or part of a state) has more than one official language, do all legally official languages need to be listed (e.g. any language that is official in a particular region but not in the entire state)?
2. Re. "majority languages" - Seems sensible.,
3. Re. "significant (generally non-immigrant) minority languages" Please quantify what is "significant". Please explain why some immigrant languages would be listed under this criteria but others would not be listed? Is that not discriminatory?,
4. Re. "languages with some kind of semi-official or regionally official status," What does "semi-official" mean?
5. Re. "historically significant languages." What does that mean? How far do we go back in history? Is this merely a device to try to include ex-colonial languages that are not official or "significant minority languages"? 84.203.69.86 (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Anon IP, you're still not getting it. We like to have flexible criteria here. That is the consensus. You are the sole person who is complaining about flexibility and desiring some kind of rigid, inflexibility in this list. The list has been very stable for months now using the flexibility of discussion and consensus-building. We're not going to rigidify these criteria to fit every one of over 192 countries into a Procrustean bed of your making. You're getting to the point of tendentious arguing here and no one else is agreeing with you. --Taivo (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot really respect your "style" of editing User Taivo - It is a style that is based on making completely arbitrary decisions - e.g. we will include one ex-colonial language but not another, we will include one minority language but not another more widely spoken one. That sort of editing goes against lots of basic Wikipedia principles like NPOV and Consistency.

What is striking here is not that there is any consensus - rather that there is apathy. Hardly any one has bothered to participate and those that have have just plugged in a few words without really engaging in the discussion - like explaining why the list is so inconsistent etc.

What we really need is broader participation on this discussion page. I will have a think about how we might drum up some greater participation. The discussion is in stalemate and the standard of discussion here is very low. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with my "editing style", anon IP, is that you think it's just my style or my decisions. This page is the result of discussions and consensus, not of arbitrary decisions by one editor or another. Someone makes a change and if someone else objects, then we talk about it and reach a consensus. You are not really working to gain consensus here, but are simply dictating that your rigid criteria are the only option for you. Various editors have already stated here that they prefer, as I do, more flexible criteria and not a rigid, one-size-fits-all, set. You are ignoring the majority of editors' opinions (I'm not the only one who has stated that here) and are claiming that I'm the only one talking. You are wrong about that. Just because others are not writing as much doesn't mean that they haven't spoken here. They said it once, but since you're not listening, you've ignored their comments. I see a similar pattern to your editing at Template Talk:Kosovo-note--constant tendentious haranguing and not listening or compromising. It only took a couple of very simple changes to make that note acceptable to both sides, but you were standing alone on one side of the argument without listening to the other side or thinking about how your point of view could be incorporated and still respect the other side's position. You are doing the same here. You are pushing your POV for rigidity despite all the other editors saying they don't want rigidity. --Taivo (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am very happy with the role I played at Template Talk:Kosovo-note. You say that I was somehow involved in "constant tendentious haranguing and not listening or compromising". You seem to completely ignore that the solution I proposed at the very outset obtained consensus in the end. There is nothing wrong with discussing things out. It was successful on that page and Wikipedia is the better for it. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This problem will not have a one-size-fits-all solution. But for Europe we can use one tool to make selection a little easier - the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Inclusion on this Charter means that the government of the respective country has specifically recognised a certain language as a regional or minority language of that country. Cornish should be included because it is recognised under that charter by the government. Chinese, Urdu, etc, while I fully accept there are more speakers of those language in the UK than Cornish, are not languages native to the state nor legally recognised languages of the state. Similarly, English is spoken by millions in China, more than some of China's minority languages, but it is not a language legally recognised by the Chinese government. While English is not legally recognised as an official language in the UK, common sense would require its inclusion. --Joowwww (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for listing autonomous territories etc

I note that under the entries for France, the United Kingdom and some other countries, there are lengthy lists with flags of sub-national autonomous territories or some such. Is the criteria for listing of these territories set out anywhere? It looks to me like there is no agreed criteria and that territories are being listed in a ‘willy-nilly’ manner. Examples of what I see as inconsistencies are:

• United Kingdom – Why do England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland get mentioned? In contrast, none of the 50 States of the US are listed.
• Antigua and Barbuda – Why aren’t both islands listed as some sort of sub-national divisions – There seems to be more justification for doing so than listing, say, England as a subdivision of the UK?
• United States of America – Why aren’t the 50 States etc each listed? They are each separate jurisdictions with governments with tax raising powers etc; powers to decide on life and death (capital punishment) etc – Surely there is greater reason to list them than say, Wales?
• Russia – Basically the same idea as for USA – Why aren’t its federal territories mentioned by name and little flag etc?
• General point about flags – We include all of the flags of, say, the UK sub-national territories. We expressly refer, in contrast, to the 5 special Indonesian provinces but don’t include their flags...Why?

Ideally, from this discussion, I would like an agreed criteria covering inclusion of sub-national territories and inclusion (or exclusion) of their respective flags to emerge. Thanks. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two general types of subnational territories--primary constituents that make up the "mainland" of the country (the four "countries" of the UK, the 50 US states, Canadian provinces, Ukrainian oblasts, Russian federal territories, Brazilian states, French departments, etc.) and secondary constituents that are peripheral and do not have equal rights and powers with the primary constituents (U.S. and U.K. territories, French overseas dependencies, etc.). The problem with accurately distinguishing between the two categories is that sometimes there is an incongruity between the territorial contiguity of a state and the rights of a territory. For example, some French overseas territories are departments of France and some are not; Alaska and Hawaii are not contiguous to the mainland U.S., but they are states while Puerto Rico is not; British subjects claim some sort of special status for the four primary constituents of the U.K. although there is no real reason other than tradition to do so; the Russian federation is composed of a variety of different pieces with different statuses, but all are contiguous; Ukraine's oblasts have a constitutionally different legal status from U.S. states; etc. So there are three options here: 1) list no dependent units at all; 2) list all dependent units for every state; 3) keep the present system where it's generally only secondary constituents that are listed. (Try removing the four primary units of the U.K. or adding all 50 states of the U.S. and see how long it takes for an edit war to erupt.) --Taivo (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The extent sections are mainly explanatory notes designed to clarify things for the reader. We can afford to be a little flexible with them since they don't really affect the main inclusion criteria of the list. They're basically written so that entities that an uninformed reader would expect to see are at least mentioned somewhere.

In terms of content, I think the status quo is fine. In terms of format, my feeling is that we should be generally be following the structure of France's current entry for the entire list, with dependent territories given the flag-and-bullet-point treatment and notable integral territories listed in paragraph form. Orange Tuesday (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The aim is to help clarify the sovereignty of the nation. There is genuine confusion amongst some over the status of Scotland/Eng/Wal/NI in relation to the UK, in the way that there isn't a confusion between the states and the USA. By contrast, the relationship between (say) Guam and the USA is more complex, so it is listed. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you mind if we reach a consensus with this discussion before we start removing national flags? The Dutch and Danish constituent countries are in the same category as the British constituents. Don't forget that List of countries redirects here, so arguably there's a good reason to list them in the notes column; the same can't be said for federated states. There is a bit of a difference between the two. Night w (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:ED "Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes: nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is, however, called for if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page). A BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is used on many pages where changes might often be contentious. Boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus or in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability." Not pre-empting whether disagreement will occur is not a reason for reverting. So no, I won't wait for a consensus. If you disagree, then the undo button is there and explain why you disagree. If I then revert back, I am then in the wrong. As it happens, I wasn't aware of the redirecting of List of Countries, so I'd be more inclined to keep the flags with that information. Nevertheless, I'd rather not see any flags in that column at all to be honest. But how about you don't lecture people on how to edit, especially where the policy pages disagree with you eh? --Pretty Green (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologise. I hadn't meant for my response to come off so abrasive. I swear it sounded differently in my head! Night w (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Night, your response wasn't abrasive at all. We were already clearly in the "Discuss" part of that cycle. However, the Dutch and Danish subnational entities are completely different than England/Scotland/etc. Aruba is a dependent territory of the Netherlands, albeit a highly autonomous one. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the current setup is reasonable and helpful to the reader providing the maximum amount of information in a clear way. Also the US entry does actually state the US is made up of 50 states and links to a table on it, for obvious reasons we can not have a list of 50 states there, it would add nothing except take up a lot of room. I there for oppose a change on this, although the question raised in the section above about languages shown is a good point. Why is French and Spanish listed for the USA entry? BritishWatcher (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

French and Spanish are listed for the United States for two reasons: 1) Spanish is a widely used significant minority language across a large section of the country and is semi-official in several states; 2) French is semi-official in Louisiana and a significant minority language there. In other countries, we list significant minority languages as well as languages that have at least partial official status. If we only list official languages, then English wouldn't even be listed for the U.S. because the U.S. has no official language, only a de facto majority language. Just like we're a bit loose in what dependent units are listed under every state for the purposes of clarity, we're a bit loose in the languages that are listed following every state--official (wholly or in part) as well as significant minority languages, individually defined. --Taivo (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we re-adopt the criteria User:Electionworld, etc., proposed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.66.30 (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What is emerging from this discussion so far is that there is actually no agreed criteria for inclusion of non-sovereign sub-state entities on the list. User "Orange Tuesday" seemed to me to be closese to the mark when he said that the reason some territories were included was simply so that the the list includes what "an uninformed reader would expect to see are at least mentioned somewhere." Is that really a good enough reason. Isn't this simply dumbing down to meet the expectiations of a dumb reader etc. Whats this logic also ignores is that really, what you are taling about is what an "uninformed Western/English-Speaking reader" would expect. Whats the point in having an encyclopedia if all we are going to do is give the reader what he expects etc? What should be done is that proper criteria should be set and stuck to - if that means that China's "Fujian Province" gets listed but the UK's "Northern Ireland" does not, so be it. The current position is entirely unsatisfactory. A sub-issue, even more unsatisfactory, is the use of flags - if, as readers suggest, for example, there is no reason to list places like England but it is done to avoid confusion - why not note that in the same consistent way that we note that the USA comprises 50 states etc...why do we get into its flag? This is just one entry. Do any of you wish to suggest criteria by which we can be guided. The criteria should address (1) which types of "sub-national" territories get listed (2) whether we need to include the flags of "sub-national" territories at all (I see no reason for including them personally - this is a list of sovereign states. Including flags seems unnecessary and stinks of nationalism of some sort or other. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should adopt the mindset of "excluding" vs. "including". The only things included on the list of sovereign states are the 203 states themselves. We should view these sections as explanatory notes, designed to succinctly describe for the reader the extent of any given state's sovereignty. I think from that perspective, being "inconsistent" from entry to entry actually kind of makes sense, since each state is structured slightly differently.

But let's take a look at what non-sovereign entities are currently mentioned (excluding territorial disputes):

• Antigua and Barbuda: Barbuda
• Australia: Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Norfolk Island, Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Coral Sea Islands, Heard Island and McDonald Islands, Australian Antarctic Territory.
• Azerbaijan: Nakhchivan
• Bosnia and Herzegovina: Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska
• Chile: Easter Island, Juan Fernández Islands, Desventuradas Islands, Isla Salas y Gómez
• China: Guangxi, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, Macao.
• Colombia: Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina
• Cuba: Guantánamo Bay
• Denmark: Faroe Islands, Greenland
• Fiji: Rotuma
• Finland: Åland
• France: French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion, French Polynesia, Mayotte, New Caledonia, Saint-Barthélemy, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Wallis and Futuna, French Southern and Antarctic Lands
• Georgia: Adjara, Abkhazia
• Greece: Mount Athos
• Indonesia: Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, Yogyakarta Special Region, Papua, West Papua, and Jakarta Special Capital Region.
• Iraq: Iraqi Kurdistan
• Italy: Aosta Valley, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Sardinia, Sicily and Trentino-Alto Adige.
• Mauritius: Rodrigues
• Netherlands: Aruba, Netherlands Antilles
• New Zealand: Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, Ross Dependency
• Norway: Svalbard, Bouvet Island, Jan Mayen, Peter I Island, Queen Maud Land
• Papua New Guinea: Autonomous Region of Bougainville
• Philippines: Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
• Portugal: Azores, Madeira.
• São Tomé and Príncipe: Príncipe
• Serbia: Kosovo and Metohija, Vojvodina
• Sudan: Southern Sudan
• Tajikistan: Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Province.
• Tanzania: Zanzibar
• Trinidad and Tobago: Tobago
• Ukraine: Crimea
• United Kingdom: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Antarctic Territory, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey.
• United States: American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Bajo Nuevo Bank, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Navassa Island, Serranilla Bank, Wake Island
• Uzbekistan: Karakalpakstan

Now, most of these entities are either top-level autonomous areas or dependent territories. Only sixteen territories fall outside of those two categories: Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Desventuradas Islands, Isla Salas y Gómez, Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina, Guantánamo Bay, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion, Svalbard, Jan Mayen, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

If we're going to make these entries "more consistent", then these are the sixteen entities we need to concern ourselves with. But for my money there's pretty good reasons -- just from a helping the reader standpoint -- to mention all of them on the list. (With the possible exceptions of Desventuradas, Salas y Gómez, San Andrés, and Jan Mayen.) Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, if we're going to be mentioning all autonomous areas (personally I think we should), we're missing Región Autónoma del Atlántico Sur and Región Autónoma del Atlántico Norte under Nicaragua; Gagauzia under Moldova; Jeju-do under South Korea; and the autonomous republics, autonomous okrugs, and autonomous oblasts of Russia. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Got to go with Orange's assessment. External dependencies need to be listed, as they're what you'd find in any reputable "list of countries". Autonomies are listed because they have a special status in a given unitary state. In federations, we've listed the number of federated states, which are constitutionally equal within the union—so there's no need for listing them individually. My preference would be to get rid of the two Chilean "seamounts" and San Andrés. And add the autonomies you've mentioned. The Russian subjects could pose a problem. I don't see a reason for removing the flags, as long as they have official status. Night w (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Orange says " I think from that perspective, being "inconsistent" from entry to entry actually kind of makes sense, since each state is structured slightly differently." Sure - Not all entries will bt the same. For example, Luxembourg is a unitary state with no dependencies etc. What is needed here is to set out the criteria for inclusion. Orange seems to be suggesting that all "top-level autonomous areas or dependent territories." should be listed. Now, if that is the criteria - the next step is to spell out what exactly is an "autonomous area" (does a County with County Government controlling waste collection count?) and what is a "dependent area" (is England a dependent area?). Going through the list is meaningless at the moment because it is totally unclear what criteria is being used to determine whether territories should be included - I suspect if consistent criteria were used, the number of entries on the list would multiply. So - please could readers suggest wording for criteria. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

An autonomous territory is designated as such in a state's constitution. Night w (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wowsers - if thats the criteria Night, there are hundreds of new entries that need listing - Texas? Fujian Province, Nigerian States, German lander like Bavaira? Why aren't all these listed (if thats the criteria!) 84.203.69.86 (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Not necessarily, Night. The U.S. Constitution makes no provisions for the status of Puerto Rico, Wake Island, or Guam. All three of these have different legal definitions, none of which are constitutional. --Taivo (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Fujian designated an autonomous first-level division in the constitution of the PRC? The others you've mentioned are federated states, which are—as I've said—constitutionally equal within their respective unions. We need only mention that said union is a federation, not a unitary state, where there might be some divisions more autonomous than another. I'm failing to see a reason for a "criteria". I agree with that Taivo, but we're talking about incorporated areas. External territories are listed anyway. Night w (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a list of them here. I assumed that's where we were drawing our inclusions from. This page isn't designed to conclude "which territories are autonomous". If you have an issue with those entries IP, you should take it up on that talk page. Night w (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Autonomous regions of China are a bad example, because they aren't autonomous. Article 30 of the PRC constitution, fwiw. It's just a name, they have no more autonomy than a province. I think the answer here to criteria is that there is no consistent criteria and it is nigh impossible to define any. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Agreed. I don't think anyone believes that Tibet is actually autonomous, but we're not describing the de facto situation, but rather listing divisions with a special status (at least officially) within a sovereign state. I agree that defining a criteria would be difficult, and unnecessary. Night w (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's no need for rule creep here, and the different technicalities of each state's constitution would make any distinctions tortuous. I think the manner of listing could be co-ordinated however. Potentially, how about listing # of states/federal regions/constituent countries/autonomous regions/other divisions in prose (example entry - Tanzania), and dependencies as bullet points with flags? --Pretty Green (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would state that we should remove the French overseas departments, as they are 100% integrated into france on every level and are seen by foriegn governments as being integral parts of france. They have no more autonomy than any metropolitan french department or region. This is similar to how alaska and hawaii are states of the us, as as such not listed.XavierGreen (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no question about their status, but there is genuine confusion when it comes to readers unfamiliar with the subject, wouldn't you agree? A reader might expect to find them amongst the dependencies. Whereas that's probably not the same with the U.S. examples —at least with an English audience. Night w (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont think so, for example the cia world factbook deleted them because they are considered integral regions. And users with little english background have tried to add hawaii as a dependency to various lists in the past.XavierGreen (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The lazy approach with low standards is winning out here....providing objective criteria against which future editors could identify whether other entries should be seems entirely apt. and not in any way impossible - yes each state has a different legal set up - but that does not prohibit setting up decent criteria. Instead, what we will really have is what Orange originally suggested - we will list what readers might some how expect us to list...the lowest common denominator...no great minds at work here...but i am outnumbered and put off by the low standard prevailing here. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much. Night w (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we simply go back to User:Electionworld's List of countries? That was a featured list, and there was clear criteria for inclusion. 112.118.163.236 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Electionworld says s/he prefers this list and the link there redirects right here to List of sovereign states. The criteria for inclusion here is not under discussion. The discussions here are now focused on what dependent territories to list in the notes and what languages to include. But thanks for playing. Johnny, what is the anon IP's consolation prize? --Taivo (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion of Flags

Clearly the flag of each sovereign state is included on the list. However, after that, there are many other flags included - and there seems to be no consistency as to which flags merit inclusion. Are there any agreed rules concerning this? Two (of many) examples are (1) PR China - The flags of none of the five autonomous regions are included but the flags of the special administrative regions are; (2) Belgium/UK - The flags of Flanders/Wallonia/Brussels are not included yet the flags of England/Scotland and Wales are...Why so? Can we set out criteria? 84.203.69.86 (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to changing the following eight entries like so?

Name in English, the official languages and major minority languages of the state	Information on status and recognition of sovereignty
Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnian and Croatian: Bosna i Hercegovina Serbian: Босна и Херцеговина	Widely recognized member of the UN. As a result of the Dayton Agreement between Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina is divided into two constituent units: Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska.
Georgia Georgian: საქართველოSak’art’velo	Widely recognized member of the UN. Georgia has two divisions with autonomous statuses: Adjara and Abkhazia. In Abkhazia and South Ossetia (a former autonomous entity) de facto states inside the de jure territory of Georgia have been formed.
Portugal – Portuguese Republic Portuguese: Portugal – República Portuguesa Mirandese: Pertual – República Pertuesa	Widely recognized member of the UN and the EU. Portugal has two autonomous regions: Azores and Madeira. Portugal does not recognize Spanish sovereignty over Olivenza and Táliga.
Serbia – Republic of Serbia Serbian: Србија – Република Србија Srbija – Republika Srbija	Widely recognized member of the UN. Serbia considers itself to have two autonomous provinces: Kosovo and Metohija and Vojvodina. Most of Kosovo is under the de facto control of the Republic of Kosovo, which does not have general recognition.
Ukraine Ukrainian: Україна Ukrajina Russian: Украи́на Ukraina	Widely recognized member of the UN. Ukraine has one autonomous republic: Crimea.
United Kingdom – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland English: United Kingdom – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Irish: Ríocht Aontaithe na Breataine Móire agus Thuaisceart Éireann Scots: Unitit Kinrick o Great Breetain an Northren Ireland Scottish Gaelic: Rìoghachd Aonaichte na Breatainn Mòire agus Èireann a Tuath Welsh: Teyrnas Unedig Prydain Fawr a Gogledd Iwerddon	Widely recognized member of the UN and the EU. The United Kingdom is a Commonwealth realm consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland Scotland, Wales. The United Kingdom has the following overseas territories: Akrotiri and Dhekelia Anguilla Bermuda British Indian Ocean Territory (disputed by Mauritius and the Seychelles) British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands Falkland Islands (disputed by Argentina) Gibraltar Montserrat Pitcairn Islands Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (disputed by Argentina) Turks and Caicos Islands British Antarctic Territory (disputed) The British Monarch has direct sovereignty over three self-governing Crown dependencies: Guernsey, with three dependencies: Alderney Herm Sark Isle of Man Jersey
Uzbekistan – Republic of Uzbekistan Uzbek: Ўзбекистон – Ўзбекистон Республикаси O'zbekiston – O‘zbekiston Respublikasi	Widely recognized member of the UN. Uzbekistan has one autonomous republic: Karakalpakstan.
Taiwan – Republic of China Chinese: 中華民國 Zhōnghuá Mínguó	A state competing for recognition with the People's Republic of China as the government of China since 1949. The Republic of China controls the island of Taiwan and associated islands, Quemoy, Matsu, the Pratas and part of the Spratly Islands, and has not renounced claims over the territory of the PRC and Mongolia. The Republic of China is currently recognised by including the Holy See. The territory of the Republic of China is claimed in whole by the People's Republic of China. The Republic of China participates in the World Health Organization and a number of non-UN international organizations such as the World Trade Organization, International Olympic Committee and others under a variety of pseudonyms, most commonly Chinese Taipei.

All entities currently mentioned on the page would remain where they are but only dependent territories would keep their flags. I think this would be a pretty reasonable standard to maintain. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine by me so long as the french overseas departments are removed, as they are not dependent territories or autonomies.XavierGreen (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please can you provide a short summary of what the changes are - otherwise readers have to open two screens and "try to spot" the differences. Thanks. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks fine. I'd be opposed to removing the French overseas departments though, for reasons I've already mentioned above. Night w (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with this change, it is certainly fairer and will reduce some of the space taken up. i too like Night W would oppose removal of the French overseas Departments. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The difference between the French overseas departments and Alaska and Hawaii is the distance involved. While Alaska and Hawaii are relative close to the continental US, the French overseas departments are sometimes on the other side of the globe from Metropolitan France. That makes their absence from the French entry more likely to be noticed than the absence of Alaska and Hawaii from the US entry. Indeed, if we listed Alaska and Hawaii under the US entry, the most common question we would then get is, "Why don't we list the other 48 states?" It's a great example of what we've been talking about with the anon IP--one size cannot fit all. --Taivo (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah but i could say the same about france, why not list the other 95 or so departments as well since they are of equal status to the four that are already listed.XavierGreen (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If this were the French Wikipedia that might happen, but English speakers are not likely to seek such equality for non-English countries. They might ask for all the provinces if Yukon were listed for Canada separately or all the states of Australia if the Northern Territories were listed, but it's not so likely for France in the English-speaking world. --Taivo (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but i also think that we should require at least some element of consistancy. If people would use logic like yours here i would be a happy man lol.XavierGreen (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Taivo - Re. "It's a great example of what we've been talking about with the anon IP--one size cannot fit all etc". Your logic is that a "dumb" reader will expect to see certain flags listed and so the list must reflect that....That is not objective criteria. It means the list is devoid of integrity. Yes, one size can certainly fit all - objective criteria applied consistently. See my very logical and objective criteria listed below. In contrast, you offer no criteria for the list or any way to give the list any integrity. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Anon, Taivo wasn't talking about flags. The French overseas regions already don't have their flags listed. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Xavier, consistency in this case would result in a fair amount of confused readers. The idea is to educate people on the subject, and the note on France does that. Where there is genuine confusion, it's more important to be informative than to be consistent. I don't think we would have the same problem with the U.S., but I wouldn't be hugely opposed to adding a note about Hawaii and Alaska. Night w (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for criteria re Flags

Why don't we try to set down clean, objective criteria by which we can decide questions concerning which flags to be included rather than arbitrarily deciding every time. In this section we could set out our proposed criteria. The following is my prosal. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

---

I propose that the only flags that should be included in the list are:

(1) the flags of the widely recognised states (no change)

(2) the flags of the partially recognised states (no change)

(3) the flags of the Non-Self Governing Territories (as listed by the United Nations)[15]. This would mean several flags would be dropped but it would mean that the list would have (1) integrity; and (2) consistency. The following are the list of the flags that would then fall to be included (all of which arae on the list at present):

AFRICA 1. Western Sahara

ATLANTIC AND CARIBBEAN

2. Anguilla

3. Bermuda

4. British Virgin Islands

5. Cayman Islands

6. Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

7. Montserrat

8. St. Helena

9. Turks and Caicos Islands

10. United States Virgin Islands

EUROPE

11. Gibraltar

PACIFIC AND INDIAN OCEANS

12. American Samoa

13. Guam

14. New Caledonia

15. Pitcairn

16. Tokelau

---

Is there any support or other views on the above as a criteria? 84.203.69.86 (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I just proposed an entirely consistent set of criteria above (only dependent territories get flags) and showed the exact changes that would entail. What's your opposition to that? Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

By giving flags to only those territories listed on the un list several dependent territories are missed that are not included on the un list for various political reasons such as Puerto Rico, French Southern and Antarctic Lands, South Georgia, ect. i would rather have orange's proposal be implemented than this one.XavierGreen (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That list of dependencies is probably the least likely among all to require flags for its entries. Orange's proposal was fine. I don't see what your objection to it was, IP. Night w (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

My objection to Orange's list is that the definition of "dependent territory" is not objective - on what sources is it determined that the island of Sark on the Channel Islands is somehow in such a distinctive position that it requires a flag but the Tibet Autonomous Region does not etc? It just isn't consistent - If we could thrash out, with reference to sources, what we mean by "dependent territory" and get very clear on that - we could then go through the list and see what should come in and what entries should be dropped. I am happy to discuss. I think there is a predominance of English speaking / Western editors here - and there is a natural tendency to see entries like "Sark" with a flag as ok etc. without thinking of the wider context of their being lots of other territories that, if such an inclusive criteria is being applied, that should be included. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is that a dependent territory is a territory which is under the sovereignty of another state without being legally integrated into that state. So Guernsey is on the list by virtue of being a crown dependency of the United Kingdom and Sark is on the list by virtue of being a dependency of Guernsey (although I'll admit I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Channel Islands. Sark might be integrated into into Guernsey the same way that Barbuda is integrated into Antigua and Barbuda). Tibet, as a nominally autonomous area, is legally a part of the People's Republic of China. And the Tibet Autonomous Region doesn't have an official flag for us to list anyway.

In other words, we follow the dependent territory page. Seems simple enough to me. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that in general. I'd oppose the use of the C24 list because inclusion on that list primarily a matter of politics and not of objective considerations. Pfainuk talk 17:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There don't seem to be any objections so I'm going to go ahead and make these specific changes. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As a flag addict, I'd like to see all the flags back, but thats my POV, not important. I do think that the flags of the two Bosnian and Herzegovinian federated states should be there. They are in a complicated relationship, and pretty much run as separate countries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Anon IP a possible sock

Based on this discussion, the anonymous IP above is possibly a sock of a banned user. --Taivo (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If you read my post carefully, you will see that I simply posted a link to a discussion about you being a possible sock (and which I am not involved with). The actions being taken there will determine the truth of the matter. If it is determined that you are a sock, then this entire discussion can be deleted since it was initiated by you and pushed by you. My post was a warning to other editors here not to waste any more of their time on the issue until it's been determined whether you are a sock or not. --Taivo (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not a sock

I have a right not to create an account here....This is most unfair. I am not a sock and what on earth have I done wrong...I have promoted worthwhile discussion. I even helped get a conensus on the Talk: Kosovo-note template (the use of which they are listing as a reason for banning me!). Please help! What edits have I done wrong...now you are trying to say I am a sock - On what basis? Why do you say that? YOu have no right to just sling allegations around. I have a right to be an IP editor....every one in the world can see my IP address....I am not an "anon sock". You should prove it if you are trying to just drum up noise to get me banned! I never attack any editor personally and look at me now, you and a few others on that page appear intent on getting me banned. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

He he, sorry that heading made me laugh. It would have seemed completely bizarre before the internet. "I am not a glove". Irrelevant, I know, but it made me smile --Pretty Green (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Supranational Organizations

Throughout the article countries in the EU and Commonwealth Realms are mentioned as such. Would there be objections to adding other important (Flexibly groups that have played a large role diplomatically/economically/regionally) international groups? I personally was thinking of the Arab League and ASEAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipmunkdavis (talk • contribs) 14:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The difference between the EU and Commonwealth and other international organizations is that the EU and Commonwealth are both "semi-sovereign" in that countries that are members have voluntarily surrendered certain aspects of their sovereignty to the common good. The Commonwealth represents a holdover from the British Empire where the countries (generally) recognize the Queen of England as their sovereign. The EU represents a newly emerging super-sovereign unit where such things as currency, economic policy, etc. have been wholly or partially surrendered to the organization. The Arab League, in contrast, is just a political action committee without any sovereign powers over its members. --Taivo (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's be careful not to confuse the Commonwealth realms with the Commonwealth of Nations. We mention the former and not the latter. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I'm an American so anything named "Commonwealth" has to have a Queen, right?<sarcasm off> --Taivo (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't see why not to mention other organizations if they're important enough. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not oppose inclusion of saying members of the commonwealth of nations, ASEAN, African Union and other international or regional bodies like that. Although we should draw up a list of what is to be included before starting to add stuff to the article so we know what groups shouldnt be mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Supranatural?? The League of Justice maybe?? :P --IANVS (talk | cont) 17:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How did only IANVS catch that? My deepest apologies for that freudian slip. I agree with BritishWatcher that we need a list before we add. Personally I dont think that the AU should be added, it hasn't achieved much at all, not even basic economic integration among all its member states. I suggest ASEAN, CARICOM, MERCOSUR, and the Andean Community. The last 3 have introduced common passports, and ASEAN has a common economic area and a free trade zone which includes China. Furthermore, there is no overlap between these, if that matters.Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting slip, tho'

BTW, Mercosur and CAN should be replaced by UNASUR. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 21:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a terrible slip. I have no idea where it came from.

I think Mercosur and CAN should be included now. UNASUR is still getting off the ground, and has yet to achieve many of its goals. Furthermore, the future of some members (guyana suriname) are uncertain due to their membership in CARICOM Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be best to list this as a group without an example, there are dozens of these organizations that posses partial soveriegnty. Only the ICRC is universally recognized as being completely soveriegn. Any other entity posseses only limited international personality.XavierGreen (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just from reading the discussion so-far, I'm thinking this would probably cause a bit more trouble than it's worth. It seems like selection would be based on arbitrary picking and choosing. I agree with Taivo that there is an essential quality that the EU has that sets it apart from ordinary international institutions, thereby making it necessary of mention. And as for the Commonwealth, as Orange said, we don't mention membership to the Commonwealth of Nations. A state's status as a Commonwealth realm is a constitutional status —it's not an IGO, so it can't be used as stare decisis in this proposal. Night w (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the commonwealth realms constitute an interesting sui generis constitutional situation, and would not use it as a basis. The EU is indeed important, being dedicated to promoting regionalism. However, other organisations have sprung up on the world stage that move to create a similar situation to the EU in other areas. The EU was the first, but that does not mean it is the only one worth mentioning. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

While there are other organizations that aspire to emulate the EU, none have actually achieved any real level of super-sovereignty as the the EU has. They are all talk at this point and no real action. --Taivo (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There is some action, albeit not on the level of the EU. There are many single market areas. Besides, the groups included do not only have to be regional groupings. Something important internationally, like the permanent UN security council members maybe? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, we must distinguish between supranational organizations regarding its nature, not regarding its importance or effectivity.

For expamle: a key aspect is to distinguish between organizations having delegate sovereign powers from its members and organizations that do not have delegate powers. For instance, suscribers to the ICJ have delegated some powers on the rulings of the International Court, though they can formally withdraw at any time. Permanent members of the UN Security Council have not withdrawn any power, since they can veto anytime; etc. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 18:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Will leave it as is for now, and will wait for organisations (UNASUR, EAC) to do a bit more then, for now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Existing groups

Why is the description of Palau Micronesia and the Marshall Islands as associated states of the USA important? Just wondering :) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Rotuma

Just wanted to point out that, to my knowledge, Rotuma is not a country (in the sense of polity, dependency, etc.) separate from Fiji. I'm aware that it is not one of the listed provinces of Fiji, but I don't believe it has autonomous status either. Sources are very scant but I found this one: http://books.google.com/books?id=B9Qww9fVkGIC&pg=PA239&lpg=PA239&dq=rotuma+free+association&source=bl&ots=yyE_6WYTgQ&sig=3SMYyQfkQjvX_1i8WK5wqfY9LPA&hl=en&ei=bIE3TPWxF8G88gaD2OSmBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rotuma%20free%20association&f=false Ladril (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Rotuma is indeed a dependency (as in, it is an administrative division of Fiji and "depedency" is its official designation. [16]). It is not a dependent territory in the sense that you're thinking, but that's not what the entry was claiming. The Fijian constitution describes Fiji and Rotuma as having "separate administrative systems" [17] and the Council of Rotuma has more powers than other local authorities. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately US government pages are riddled with mistakes when referring to situations in other countries. I would prefer something more explicit from the Fijian government itself. Ladril (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

ISO 3166-2:FJ lists Rotuma as a dependency as well. This status is not in any way in dispute. Orange Tuesday (talk) 04:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, don't confuse "dependency" as a name for a type of integral subnational division with the concept of a dependent territory. Orange Tuesday (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Even the ISO is not that good a source. The organization lists Taiwan as a province of China, not as a sovereign state. An encyclopedia ought to be more critical. Ladril (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what to tell you on this. Rotuma is a dependency of Fiji. That is the name of the type of subnational entity that it is. That's just a basic fact. I don't think you could provide any evidence to contradict this. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I'm just as puzzled. Can't find any reliable literature listing Rotuma as a "dependency" to begin with. Ladril (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make the argument clear, as Orange Tuesday asked.

I don't believe the sources used for defining everything in this page should be the CIA or the ISO. The first one does not represent a worldwide view of the subject and the second one only reflects the view of the 165 states that form part of it.

Ergo, a source coming from the country of origin should normally take precedence in the case of that country, unless we have reason to assume its uncritical use violates neutrality.

The problem I see with using the term "dependency" to refer to Rotuma is that it risks confusing the non-expert user. It leads to think that Rotuma is a dependent territory of Fiji, which it isn't.

As a result of the above, I'm proposing doing the same thing as this author (page 34): [18], and using a local Fijian legal text as the source for the Fiji entry on the list: the Interpretation Act. Using the Fijian legal language seems more fitting to me than using that of the Central Intelligence Agency!

According to that text [19], ""Fiji" means the State of Fiji... <snip>... and the island of Rotuma and its Dependencies". Do we have a consensus on editing the entry so that the text resembles this more? Ladril (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you disputing the autonomous status or the terminology used? Because only the former needs mentioning on this list. Night w (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Both, actually. I don't know if another definition has been obtained through consensus, but I believe only entities explicitly given autonomous status, as attested by a reliable source, ought to be listed as such on this page. I don't think any part of Fiji fits the criterion. As said above, I'm also against the term "dependency". Ladril (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been afforded a special charter and a separate legislature, and its people are recognised as a separate nationality. I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that it's any other way. We don't have to use the term "dependency" in this list, you should request verification of that terminology on the Talk:Fiji page. Night w (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah, the page where the problem seems to stem from is Local government in Fiji. See you there. A comment about your edit: 'Rotuma and its dependencies' is the legal text, and it should be kept here regardless of how their political status is described. Ladril (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added the islands' special charter. Questioning the origin of long-accepted claims is a very good way to improve the page. However, next time, please use {{cn}} instead of just changing the statement to something else. Night w (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Basic difference

Hi to all. I make little but fundamental changes to the article, concerning the difference between recognized and unrecognized counties.

There was a concept which is in a total contrast with international law: the statement that an unrecognized country would be "de facto independent". This is totally false. According to ius cogens and the main conventional treaties (the Montevideo Convention over all) a state which is de facto independent automaticly beoomes de iure independent and it is recognized by the international community. If a state is unrecognized, this means that general international community considers that it is NOT de facto independent and sovereign, their claimed independence being fictious only. Let's give some exemples. Is South Ossetia de facto independent? No, according to the opinion of the international community, which says (with a low voice, for obvious reasons) that its de facto condition is to be a Russian dependency and, consequently, does not recognize it. The case of Noth Cyprus is ever more clear: there are explicit final judgements by the Concil of Europe which say that NC is de facto a Turkisk province, no differently from Ankara region or Istanbul region.

The writers of this page made an error: they took territory, population and government as sufficient conditions to "NPOVly" describe a de facto independent state (and using international recognition to identify de iure independent states). But this is basicly false. Even the State of Texas has a territory, a population, a government, and a Head of State which owns powers which, in the great majority of the other countries worldwide, belong to the king or the President of the Republic. But, as everyone knows, Texas is not a sovereign state, because it has a sovereign power over it. More than Texas, Portorico does not elect the government of the US but, even with its territory, its population and its government, it is not a sovereign state, being subject to the US. Well, international community says that Northern Cyprus relation with Turkey is de facto the same relation between Portorico and the United States. By the other side, the majority of i.c. says that Kosovo is not de facto independent, but it is de facto a dependency of the US and its allies.

Saying that an unrecognized country would be a de facto sovereign state, would mean not to understand the main reason because it is not recognized.--79.54.154.62 (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You bring up a legitimate argument, one I must admit, I have not heard before. In a nutshell you are arguing the states such as N. Cyprus or S.O. are not truly de facto independent entities, because, de facto, they are provinces or their respective Turk/Russian supporting states. I recognise that this is a legitimate argument, yes, however this is not the case for all 10 entries of this nature. For example; Somaliland, or Taiwan (I know arguments could be made that Taiwan is proxy of western influence, but thats more of a stretch). And more over there are cases of these states acting independently from those who recognise them; wholely true in N.C,'s case; and there have been reports from Abkhazia to this nature as well.

Also, the concept of de facto is not subjective, it is objective and the opinion of the international community does not hold on wikipedia if it is contrary to verified facts. In a number of these cases we have scholarly articles that say such and such a country is de facto independent. Outback the koala (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(out time) You see, Outback, that here we must not take absolute position. We mustn't say in the page the NC or Abkasia "are not de facto independent states". But we can't say in the page that they "are de facto independent states", because making so we put wikipedia in clear contrast with official sources (which are particularly relevant in the North Cyprus case). Speaking about the NC case, if we look at verified facts, we can't forget that two of the main sovereign powers in NC, the military power and the economic power (the currency), are Turkish.

The sole NPOV affirmation we can make, is that they claim to be independent.
A separate and unique case is the Taiwan affair (Somaliland effective power outside its "capital" is quite dubious). PR of China (slowly) says that the de facto sovereignty over the island is American. This position is generally considered as a pure political opinion. But the problem of Taiwan is that, differently from what wikipedia uncorrectly says, Taiwan has not diplomatic relation with the greater part of the international community, but it has consular relation with the greater part of the world states (including US, UK, Russia, France, Germsny and Italy). The error here is merging the Taiwan case (which is unique) with the other ones.
A little problem of logic to finish. If I says that A, B and C are red balls, both A, B and C must be red. If even B is green, my sentence is false. Here, we have a list of unrecognized states, and wikipedia is saying that they are de facto independent. But, at least in one case (North Cyprus), official sources say that this is false. So, wikipedia's statement that they are independent, is false, or at least it is in contrast with official sources, so becoming POV. To eliminate this problem I suggest a more NPOV aaffirmation, says that this states claim to be independent. So we would explain thair position, but we would not put wikipedia in opposition with official sources (all positions about the reality, negative of affermative, could be added).--79.54.154.62 (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The anon IP doesn't seem to understand the difference between de facto and de jure. He is, legitimately, arguing that these states are not de jure (by law) independent because they are not recognized as such in the international community. However, these states are de facto independent since they do not allow other uninvited armies within their borders. The police and army of the Republic of Cyprus do not operate within the borders of Northern Cyprus. The army and police of Georgia do not operate within the borders of either Abkhazia or South Ossetia. Therefore, they are de facto (in fact) independent even though they are not de jure independent. Recognition only applies to their de jure independent status, not to their de facto independent status. By the anon IPs arguments, then Iraq and Afghanistan are dependencies of the U.S. as well. --Taivo (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I would better say, my friend Taivo, that here it's you that do not understand the core of the problem. In international law, in very few cases there is a difference between de facto and de iure situation. International law is the most primitive of all legal systems, and de fato situations generally lead to de iure situations.
Speaking about your statements, I could say that tha police and the army of the Republic of Cuba do not operate within the borders of Portorico. So, can we say that Portorico is an independent nation? I think not. To be facto independent, a nation must not to have any form of foreign direct interventation (Iraq and Afghanistan situation are off-topic: here we are speaking about de facto situations, while Iraq and Afgh are de iure independent), and the Concil of Europe says that the de facto sovereign state in Northern Cyprus is Turkey. Is the Council of Europe wrong? I don't know, this is not a wikipedia problem. All positions and opinions should be shown. But the actual page take a different, unilateral and abusive position. --79.54.154.62 (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Any time that you rely on official, legal statements to determine de facto status then you have automatically veered into a de jure determination. Your comment about Cuba and Puerto Rico is irrelevant since 1) Puerto Rico does not claim sovereignty and 2) Puerto Rico did not break away from Cuba. In the cases in Europe which you cite, the countries do not allow the police or army of the nation to which they were formerly dependent to enter them. They have declared their independence and established their own sovereignty separate from the nation from which they separated. That makes them de facto independent. But you are using de jure statements (even though they use the terms de facto) to claim that they are not de facto sovereign. You are pushing a POV here that is not relevant to Wikipedia--these states are listed in "Other states" because their sovereignty is disputed, but they are de facto independently sovereign. Once you demonstrate that the police of Cyprus patrol the streets of Northern Cyprus or the army of Cyprus protects the shores of Northern Cyprus, then you'll have an argument about removing them as de facto sovereign states. But until then you have only de jure arguments (whether the de jure statement uses the term de facto or not). --Taivo (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You are making a big, big confusion, my friend. The problem is not the relationship between Northern Cyprus and the Rep. of Cyprus. The problem is the relationship between Northern Cyprus and Turkey: is NC independent from Turkey? Well, the facts are that the military power in NC is exercized by Turkey (we are not speaking about a simple military presence as the NATO-US bases in Western Europe: we are speaking about an effective, military control); the currency is the Turkish lira; the telephoning net is Turkish as the internet domain. And, if some doubts could still exist, I suggest to look at all institutional palaces in TRNC, where the Turkish flag flows together with the TRNC flag [20], as it normally happens in dependencies: in Portorico for example [21]. TRNC claims sovereignty but, honestly, it's harsh to see a real difference between de facto conditions of Portorico and Northern Cyprus. --79.54.154.62 (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

So your criteria, do, indeed, make Iraq and Afghanistan dependencies of the United States since nearly all of these things are true of them as well. One very important difference between Puerto Rico (please learn to spell it correctly), Northern Cyprus, Iraq, and Afghanistan is that Puerto Rico does not claim or exercise independence from the United States. There are some international organizations where Northern Cyprus exercises its independence and is not "part of Turkey". There are other cases where an otherwise sovereign nation gets military and technical assistance from another country, but that does not weaken its claim to sovereignty. We discussed a couple examples with New Zealand recently where it provides security and even infrastructure to some Pacific nations. I think that you a pushing an anti-Northern Cyprus POV here to the extreme. The article as written is neutral. --Taivo (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you have a "fantasy" idea of the situation of Iraq and Afghanistan. I remember you that the US dollar is not the currency of Iraq, that the American flag does not flown over the Parliament of Afghanistan, you must not use the +1 calling code to call a friend in Baghdad. You are basicly wrong. And please, note that I took TRNC as an exemple. I could make similar exemples about the relationship between Russia and South Ossetia, if you like. --79.54.154.62 (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No one else is buying your arguments. The consensus here is that the structure that we now have in the list is stable, legitimate, and NPOV. If you disagree, then I suggest you submit a formal RFC. --Taivo (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you have so a disruptive attitude. However, the European Court of Human Rights disagreeing with you (Judgement Loizidou vs. Turkey, December 18, 1996), the ECHR being a source for wikipedia, you not being a source for wikipedia, you can't say the the page is NPOV, unfortunately. (By the way, it's interesting to see that firstly you tried to search reasons for your position but, when these reasons fell, you changed positions calling for the consensus. What's your problem about a simple improving of accuracy of the page?)--79.54.154.62 (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The article is perfectly accurate as it stands. You have made a very good argument for de jure status (and the court case proves that), but not for de facto status. I have stated that several times already. No other editors are agreeing with you. The article has been through multiple discussions and revisions over the past year in order to reach a stable, consensus-driven, NPOV status. Build a consensus for change, but you have failed to build a consensus at this point. --Taivo (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you heard this latin word "de iure", you liked its sound, and you continued to use it without understanding what it means. In international law, "ius" (law) is basicly made by a single source: an international treaty. Here we are speaking about the real ("de facto") situation of these unrecognized. You didn't show a single evidence about their factual independence. Have you got them?--79.54.154.62 (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The court case doesn't prove anything of the sort, so far as I can tell - beyond that the de jure status of Northern Cyprus is disputed. It's disputed depending on whether you take the EHCR's view or the TRNC's view. In any case, the ECHR's positions are fundamentally legalistic - so the claim that it, in and of itself, has any relevance in de facto independence is not reasonable.

If currencies and flags are the arbiters of sovereignty, there's a lot of things that need to change here. Much of Europe shares a currency, and many states in Europe fly the Flag of Europe alongside their own national flags.

For better or worse, we've determined a set of criteria that would seem to reasonably describe de facto independence. In most of these cases, with only a few exceptions, there are actual diplomatic relations between these states. The fact of dispute is why they're separated away from the main list.

Now let's deal with the practicalities of the thing. Can a list of sovereign states be neutral if Kosovo is not mentioned? No, because that accepts the Serbian POV in that dispute. Can it be neutral if Abkhazia is not included? No, because that takes Georgian side in that dispute. Excluding Northern Cyprus takes the Cypriot side in that dispute. Excluding Transnistria takes the Moldovan side. And so on. Neutrality does not just allow these entities to be included: it requires they be included. Pfainuk talk 14:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You must understand, Pfainuk, that the problem (and my goal) is not to exclude any unrecognized country from the list. The problem I underlined is the description that wikipedia makes of these countries. They have a single, NPOV characteristic they share: they describe themselves as independent states. I think this must be be entering criterium to use. Indeed, we must remove the diplomatic regnotion (states in war have not diplomatic relations, but I think we can't speak about them as "states with limited recognition") as a criterium.
The euro is a common currency, the EU flag is a common flag. The Turkish lira is a national currency, and the national Turkish flag is a clear evidence of sovereignty. You are right when you say that neutrality requires TRNC, S.Ossetia or Kosovo inclusion in the list: but the problem is the wikipedia affirmation about their supposed independence, which unilaterally adopts the POV of TRNC and Turkey, Abkasia and Russia, Kosovo and the NATO, and so on. This doesn't mean that I'm suggesting to write they are not independent: we must wtite that their factual independence is disputed, not saying they are factually independent, not saying that aren't factually independent.--79.54.154.62 (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We have a set criteria that defines what de facto statehood is, and that determines which cases it applies to. The answer of whether or not a polity fulfils that criteria is, in most cases, purely objective. Are you disputing the criteria we use, or the credibility of their claim to fulfil said criteria? Night w (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Anon IP, you demand a separate currency for a state to be de facto independent--that eliminates Germany as a de facto independent state. You demand an army for a state to be de facto independent--that eliminates a couple of South Sea nations that rely on New Zealand for defense. You demand ambassadors and international relations--but these states will only have ambassadors when they've been recognized, so there are ambassadors in those countries that have recognized them. You will, indeed, find other diplomatic representatives in the United States, for example, but their work is limited until they've been recognized by the U.S. Kosovo, for example, will have an ambassador to the U.S., but South Ossetia will have a diplomat, just not a recognized diplomat, therefore not an "ambassador". Our Wikipedia definition of de facto does not mean that these states are undisputed, but it means that the disputation is de jure, not de facto. There is a de facto region of the island of Cyprus, claimed by the Republic of Cyprus that exists independently from the control of the Republic of Cyprus that has very limited recognition from the international community, but has diplomats out there and tries to maintain a separate and independent existence. Neither Turkey nor Northern Cyprus says that it is part of Turkey, indeed, Turkey specifically recognizes it as an independent, sovereign state. It's not part of Cyprus, it's not part of Turkey. That's de facto. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia "recognizes" its existence as legitimate or not. Wikipedia simply recognizes its existence there as something separate from the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Turkey. --Taivo (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(Answer to Nightw) Basicly I'm disputing the criteria, and the fact that the page takes an unilateral (POV) position: the position of the secessionist states. What I'm proposing to change, is the affirmation that they are factually independent. And, make attention: I don't want to say they aren't independent. I want to say their factual situation is disputed. No more than this. We shouldn't say that Kosovo is independent (assuming the US POV) or it isn't (assuming the Serbian POV), we should say that Kosovo claims to be independent (without taking position about the reality of this affirmation). All changes I'm proposing can be seen here [22].--79.54.154.62 (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(Answer to Taivo) You continue not to see your POV. Wikipedia simply recognizes TRNC existence there as something separate from the Republic of Turkey, you said? I say you that this is the wikipedia POV, because I explained you that the ECHR, the UN, 192 states of international community, and many international observers, say that the factual sovereignty there is Turkish. And, I repeat, the same problem occurs in Abkasia or Kosovo. This factual sovereignty described by wikipedia, is a pure, unilateral POV. (And please, I said you five times we are speaking about unrecognized countries. Please stop adding confusion to this discussion speaking about recognized UN members, which are off-topic of this discussion). --79.54.154.62 (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Putting their POV would be to state that they are legally independent, that they are de jure independent. Putting their POV would be to place them in the main list with all those states whose status is widely recognised. The whole point behind the distinction between widely-recognised states and other states is that the former can be assumed to be accepted while the latter cannot. Obviously there are limits even there, but the methodology, IMO, is sound. We list the states with general international recognition and then list those entities that certainly do exist in practice, but that are not legally recognised by many/most/all states. The fact that the Kosovo government acts independently of Serbia on the ground is difficult to dispute, but implies nothing about the legality of the situation. We should continue to list states as de facto independent while allow both for the interpretation that they are de jure independent and that they are not de jure independent. Pfainuk talk 16:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, again, again: I said dozen of times that I agree with you, Pfainuk, when you said that Kosovo is factually independent from Serbia. But I can't agree when you UNILATERALLY say that Kosovo is independent by the US: you took an anti-Serbian and anti-Russian POV with this position. You said "those entities that certainly do exist in practice" but, as I said, this is not certain. I said, Alabama has a territory and a government, but it is not sovereign beacuse it's submitted to the US: how can you be so certain that South Ossetia is not submitted to Russia? Was the Slovak State independent from Nazi Germany? --79.54.154.62 (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Then what would you say about Lichtenstein then? Does it not 'submit' to Switzerland? Outback the koala (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Or any other suzerain? You're talking about circles of influence, right? But the greater state may still recognise the independent sovereignty of the smaller state. Night w (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Anon IP, you continually complain when I cite Germany and certain Pacific Islands as examples where your claims of what constitutes de facto sovereignty fall apart, but then you introduce your own red herrings in Alabama and Puerto Rico. The difference between Alabama and Northern Cyprus is that the U.S. claims sovereignty over Alabama and Alabama recognizes that sovereignty (same with Puerto Rico). Northern Cyprus claims independence from both the Republic of Cyprus and Turkey. Turkey acknowledges that claim of sovereignty and independence on the part of Northern Cyprus. The dispute is that the Republic of Cyprus does not acknowledge that claim. But since the ROC has no actual sovereignty over Northern Cyprus, we set Northern Cyprus up as de facto independent and sovereign. Your claim that it is part of Turkey is only a de jure argument, not a de facto argument. No one disputes that Northern Cyprus has a disputed de jure claim, but everyone except you agrees that there is a de facto state that exists in the northern part of the island of Cyprus. It is not a part of Turkey since Turkey does not claim it. It is not a part of Cyprus since the inhabitants do not recognize Cyprus' sovereignty over them. --Taivo (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If I could chip in, the ip seems to be disputing the use of the term "de facto", saying that they are not "de facto" independent from the bigger states around them. However, he confuses the issue of influence and independence. As a fact, Turkey has a great influence in Northern Cyprus, not least because as the only country that recognizes it, it is the only country able to send aid and assist in a diplomatic fashion. Russia and South Ossetia/Abkhazia have the same situation. That does not mean they are not "de facto" independent. Being independent doesn't mean being free from outside influence. For example, would you currently claim that Greece is not "de facto" independent from Germany, as Germany is in a way dictating the way it runs its economical systems? You wouldn't. Influence is not the same as independence, which is the issue at hand. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC) "

Hi my friends, I'm back. During WW2, Taivo, Croatia claimed independence and Germany said that Croatia was independent. But the greater part of the international community said that Croatian declaration of independence, and the related German recognition, was fictious, because Germany was the real sovereign on Croatian lands. Were did you read that a simple declaration of independence is sufficient to prove an effective sovereignty? The ECHR condamned Turkey because it stated that Turkey was execizing a direct control over NC (this is not, Chipmunkdavis, a case of simple "influence": it's a case of direct, effective exercize of power on the land and on citizens. US, the biggest world power, exercizes influence over the government of Western Europe: but have you ever seen American soldiers exercizing an authority over Belgian citizens in Bruxelles or over British citizens in Liverpool?). The de iure status of these unrecognized countries, at opposite of what you are saying, is undisputed: in international law, there a sole way to change de de iure status of a territory: signing a peace treaty with the previous sovereign. South Ossetia is de iure (by INTERNATIONAL law) undoubtly part of Georgia, for the simple fact that Georgia never signed a legal act of cession (a peace treaty).
Let's go to the core of the problem: how can we prove a de facto independence? By a simple declaration of independence? Who said this?--79.45.155.193 (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If a country declares its independence and the former sovereign power no longer exerts control over that territory, then it is independent. If another state has assisted in the independence and recognizes that independence, that makes it independent. The American colonies were not much different--they needed the assistance and recognition of the Dutch and the French before the British could be evicted. In the case of Northern Cyprus, they have been assisted by the Turks; the South Ossetians have been assisted by the Russians; the Kosovans have been assisted by NATO. Under your definition of WWII Croatian sovereignty, then Iraq and Afghanistan were (still are?) U.S. dependencies rather than independent nations. You haven't presented any facts here other than a single ECHR ruling. An ECHR ruling is, by definition, a determination of de jure status. There are other international organizations for sport, for example, where Northern Cyprus actually functions as a separate, sovereign state. Some are listed in that article. Independence is independence when the formerly sovereign power has been removed from the new nation's territory (by whatever means). If the assisting power doesn't then claim sovereignty in place of the former sovereign, then that state is de facto independent (de jure may be a later stage). --Taivo (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

France didn't invade the 13 colonies, did not establish fifteen years of military occupation, and did not write the declaration of independence. American Independence was a genuine, American-started phenomenon, and the French help arrived later than July 4, 1776. I can't understand how you can't see the difference.
And, saying that the ECHR would rule a determination of a de iure status, you show you don't know how international law works.
But, let's speak about a clear, undoubted case: Palestine. Here we are sure we don't have have any form of de facto sovereignty (indeed, maybe we could speak about the de iure sovereignty).--79.45.155.193 (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In the same way north cyprus, south ossetia, abkazia, transnistria, somaliland, all declared their independence BEFORE another country came to help them. In somalilands place, noone has come yet. Furthermore, we can not go around basing independence on foreign influence. For example, Nauru, an independent de jure and de facto country, is pretty much in the control of Australia, on which it is dependent for aid. Palestine is fairly sui generis, with a recognized government, though it is a government not of an independent country. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My God, Chipmunkdavis, everybody knows that North Cyprus declared its "independence" nine years AFTER the military invasion by Turkey (do you call this [23] simply "influence"? The United Nations call this "effective control" and "military occupation"), I repeat: did you see Australian soldiers exerciting direct authotity over Nauru citizienship? When? --79.45.155.193 (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Overreaction.

2. I'm sure not "everybody" knows that.

3. I call this influence: [24]

4. Here are some australian troops exerting a strong presence (direct authority? I am afraid to say that due to semantics) in the solomons (admittedly not nauru) [25]. When... for awhile.

Apologies for the North Cyprus error. My mistake. Still leaves the other territories. As an aside, that puts North Cyprus in a position most similar to Kosovo, which I find interesting. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Question for regular editors

At this point, has the anon IP convinced any of the regular editors of his/her point of view? (Please don't respond here, anon IP, let's leave this just as a simple polling.) --Taivo (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not me. We're getting to a point where the discussion is reaching a natural conclusion and I am unconvinced by his/her arguments. Pfainuk talk 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• No We seem to be arguing a case based on semantics more than anything else, and the semantics used are based on verifiable sources Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not sure this kind of poll is the most constructive way of resolving talk page disputes. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• I'm sick of jumping through hoops for every IP address that comes through here. It never results in any kind of improvement to the page. We have a set criteria for inclusion, and those are the entries that meet the requirements. Not "maybe, but maybe not, because they're actually being propped up by some foreign power"; they either do or they don't. If the IP user has a specific case s/he would like the community to review, that's a different story, but it should be made clear that we'll be using the same criteria, as that's the criteria used in legal theory. Night w (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that people usually have strong opinions on these kind of topics. I, for example, find almost amusing the vehemence with which people dispute the sovereignty of the Cook Islands, because they do not realize how wrong they are. Not that I necessarily agree with the original poster but I feel that all of us need to be a bit more tolerant of non-orthodox opinions. Ladril (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• I see where the anon user is coming from, but he fails to convince me at this point. I disagree with his/her position respectfully. @Orange - I agree, but in this case I don't see the discussion going anywhere but circles and muddled by arguments over definitions of de facto(which is being misused in this case). @Ladril- I agree, very strong opinions abound. Outback the koala (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• For the Northern Cyprus example it doesnt matter what it is defacto, dejure Turkey recognizes it as a soveriegn state apart from turkey. Despite whatever the situation may be on the ground, the fact that at least one state recognizes it at independent makes it eligable to be included as a soveriegn state on the page.XavierGreen (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. It is de facto independent from the country it is de jure part of Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

More than mobbing the original poster, let's suggest a source: [26]. See page x of the Foreword, where an explicit definition of a de facto state is made. I do not think the majority is wrong in this case. Ladril (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Switch sources?

For translations and transliterations in this list, we are currently using, respectively:

1. the CIA World Factbook (United States)
2. the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Germany)

I propose we use instead, a single source:

1. the UNGEGN (United Nations)

The UNGEGN document includes both translation and transliteration in the one document and, from what I can tell, we shouldn't need any additional references. It is also undoubtedly more authoratative. Apparently, as it is now, we don't even use the sources we cite, as the CIA renders all their names without macrons (which we include).

I apologise if this makes one too many active discussions on this page. I've had this lined up for a while, and I was waiting for the IP nonsense to end. Night w (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If they conflict, I suppose the UN one would be better. However, if there are other options not presented on the UN article, then there is no reason they shouldn't be included. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as we keep in mind that the UN is not a neutral source when there is a conflict between the sources(I remember the Most Serene Republic). Recall; the UN is a political body with political aims/opinions. Otherwise I see no reason not to go ahead with this. Outback the koala (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Outback. --Taivo (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I never meant to suggest that it was neutral. But it's probably a tad more democratic than the German or U.S. governments; that is to say, it represents the view of the majority, rather than the view of one. It's just a better source is all. I'll make a start soon. Night w (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Before going through the whole list, I'd like to see a sample change in one country just to be sure what the final version is going to look like. That way, if someone has a major objection to the revised version, we can talk about it without having to think about redoing a lot of work. --Taivo (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Differences

I've created a diff for review. It's actually a fair bit more substantial than I thought it would be, but most changes are very minor. Entries most significantly affected are listed in the box below. Discussion over these changes should take place at the bottom of this talk page. I will then archive the discussion at Talk:List of sovereign states after its conclusion, as this page will be deleted. Night w (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Entries affected Additions and subtractions + Arabic to Eritrea + Demotic to Greece Note: I'm pretty sure there's something wrong with this; I'm just going off the source. + Alt local form to Norway Note: I think "Norwegian" would need splitting into two. + Hiri Motu to Papua New Guinea – Russian alternative "Belorussiya" from Belarus Major changes to names Comoros: Arabic translation Fiji: native long-form Malawi: native long-form Malaysia: native long-form Marshall Islands: native short-form Mongolia: added native short-form Pakistan: Urdu long-form (order of wording) Paraguay: Guarani translation Samoa: native long-form Tonga: native long-form UAE: native Arabic names Major changes in spelling Bangladesh Bulgaria Chad Comoros Eritrea India South Korea Maldives Pakistan Paraguay Peru Russia Singapore Sri Lanka Ukraine Minor changes in spelling Afghanistan Belarus Bhutan Cyprus Jordan Kazakhstan Kiribati Libya Nepal Rwanda Most significant changes in grammar and the use of diacritics Cambodia China North Korea Mongolia Papua New Guinea Singapore South Africa Thailand

Conventions

In addition, some different conventions are applied, the affects of which are visible in the diff.

• French descriptive names rendered in lowercase (affects 6 entries).

• Example: Togolaise → togolaise

• Transliterations from Russian use "j" instead of "y" (affects 2 entries).

• Example: Rossiya → Rossija

• Transliterations from Arabic are rendered without hyphens (affects 18 entries), and the use macrons to replace digraphs (affects 12 entries).

• Example: al-Bahrayn → Al Bahrayn
• Example: ...riyyat → ...rīyat

Not referenced

I've also added {{cn}} next to entries which are not addressed in the UN source. They are:

• Bolivia: Ayamara, Guarani, and Quechua translations  Done
• Fiji: Hindi and Urdu scripts and romanisations  Done
• India: all scripts and romanisations except for Hindi  Done
• Iraq: Kurdish script and romanisation  Done
• Malaysia: Tamil script and romanisation, Chinese romanisation  Done
• Marshall Islands: local long-form  Done
• Nigeria: Hausa, Igbo, and Yoruba translations  Not done
• Peru: Ayamara and Quechua translations  Done
• Spain: Basque, Galician, Occitan, and Catalan  Done (+ Asturian)
• Ukraine: Russian transliteration  Done
• United Kingdom: all regional dialects  Done
• United States: Hawaiian translation (accidentally also tagged Spanish and French; just ignore)  Done
• Uzbekistan: Uzbek script  Done
• Vatican City: all languages, including English (not listed in source)  Done (+ French)
• Zambia: regional translations  Done
• China: regional translations  Done

Alterations to non-Latin scripts

Changes that would occur to non-Latin scripts are not shown in the diff, as my browser can't seem to manage a simply copy-paste.

• Comoros: changes to the Arabic script as a result of previously-mentioned word additions  Done
• Eritrea: Arabic script requires adding  Done
• Maldives: Dhivehi short-form requires adding  Done
• Pakistan: changes to the Urdu script as a result of previously-mentioned word rearrangement  Done
• Sri Lanka: possible differences with the Tamil script  Done
• UAE: differences with the Arabic script  Done

Issues

• Burma: is listed as "Myanmar" in the UN source. In addition, there are differences with its Burmese script and romanisation, but my browser renders it all in little ꜛ boxes.
  • I think I've fixed this. Will somebody who is able to see the script please confirm this.
• Macedonia: is of course not listed as such in the UN source. In addition, its Albanian translation is without a source.  Fixed
• Greece: dialects and their transliterations need confirming.  Fixed

Discussion

I can find no reason to argue with anything you have done, as it is definitely verifiable and probably right. In terms of your unverifiable ones, I have no idea why fiji has hindu or urdu scripts anyway. In terms of issue one, the current wikipedia page for Myanmar calls it Burma, due to a huge edit war after the monks protest. After the junta elections, there will be another discussion to try and get it changed back to Myanmar. Contentious political issue. As for Macedonia, Macedonia is the short form, and surely the equivalent word is included in the very long UN name? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, quite a job as well. I think this provides a good consistent start point and I'm sure remaining citations etc can be sorted. Do all names require citation? I'd argue, for example, that Estados Unidos de América for USA is common knowledge, and its common knowledge that Spanish is a major language in the USA. Citation is only needed if a claim is challenged; it is not required for every piece of knowledge. Same goes for many other names in major world languages. Pretty Green (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks good. I agree with Pretty Green, however, that we don't need endless citations. Perhaps only if a form is questioned should a citation be required. Anyone who took high school French knows the French form for "United States". --Taivo (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that depends on whether you went to high school in the U.S. or not. Night w (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Green and Tavio. @Night w. -in theory you can take French in any country. Outback the koala (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

? Yes, I took French in high school, but while I know the name "Australie", I wouldn't have a clue what the names of other countries are in French (actually I couldn't even tell you the French for "Commonwealth of Australia"), except for maybe those in Europe. It's necessary, in my opinion, to reference as much as possible. If we continue to wait until a statement is challenged before referencing it, then we'll continue to have the errors and inconsistencies that I've just had to correct. In any case, the Spanish and French for "United States" is already covered in the UN source. Night w (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. And sorry for my confusing comment.... :P Outback the koala (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Disputed" tag

A single disgruntled anonymous IP with a legalistic point does not justify the disputed fact tag. I have removed it. --Taivo (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Your attitude and interventations are flaming a discussion which was fairly started. Please wait some other interventations by users.--79.54.154.62 (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia pattern is "edit, revert, discuss", NOT "edit, revert, edit again". You placed the disputed tag, I objected and reverted, now we discuss BEFORE you replace the tag. I have not "intervened" in anything. Indeed, you are the one who has intervened in pushing a POV in opposition to the mention of any disputed states. The "disputed" tag is when there is a significant division in opinion. At this point, you are the only editor in opposition. That doesn't warrant the use of a "disputed" tag. --Taivo (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

agreed no need for disputed tag. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Also agreed with Taivo and BW. Pfainuk talk 14:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Anon IP, please stop needlessly adding tags to an article that is stable and based on consensus. Establish a consensus for your views without inserting unnecessary and unwarranted tags. --Taivo (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Asking sources is a right of each single user. Have you got these sources?--79.54.154.62 (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

But you are inserting these tags not to ask for sources, but to further your argumentation on the Talk Page. As I said in my edit summary, your objections aren't to the existence of these "other states" but to our characterization of them as "de facto". Your objections aren't to the list as a whole, but to individual members of that list. You just placed that "citation" tag where you did to be argumentative. --Taivo (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Tags are added for the purpose of eliciting discussion with dispute, you DONT need consensus to ADD a tag, but to remove it.Lihaas (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrative Divisions

Is there a standard for which we put in the administrative divisions? I understand that special administrative divisions are included, and that places like England are included to help the reader. Besides that though, does the article only cover the countries with internal divisions that contain levels of autonomy? (eg. Federations) Including the information of places like Colombia seems to be inconsistent. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Besides divisions that contain levels of autonomy, seens that it is listed, dependencies, external territories and claimed areas, to clarify where the sovereigny of the country goes (or it claims so). But cases like Colombia are really inconsistent. If we list all the administrative divisions, this list will go very long (and there is a list for administrative divisions already: Table of administrative divisions by country).Gvogas (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well then I think cases like Colombia should be removed? Unless we want to go through each entry and then state the type of government (federation, unitary, confederation) and the number of constituent parts, which I don't think we want to (Imagine Russia D: ). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina is detailed into Colombia section because Colombian sovereignty over the archipelago is contested by Nicaragua. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

See here. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That is fair enough, but in that case it should state that dispute, and the detail about the different provinces and the city is unnecessary. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should do what Chipmunkdavis said above. Detail the dispute on the islands and remove the part of the other provinces.Gvogas (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

I want to rewrite/reformat this "French sovereignty over Bassas da India, Europa Island and Juan de Nova Island is disputed by Madagascar, over Glorioso Islands by Madagascar, the Seychelles and the Comoros, over Tromelin Island by Mauritius and the Seychelles, and over Banc du Geyser by Madagascar and the Comoros.[7]" to make it more readable in the table format it is in, but cannot figure out how. Would it be better with each dispute taking a different line? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica

"The continent of Antarctica, including its outlying islands south of 60°S, are held in abeyance under the terms of the Antarctic Treaty System. All territorial claims are neither recognised nor disputed. Claimant countries are Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom. There is also an informal Brazilian claim."

This note is incorrect and inconsistent with the article, as far as I can see. Issues:

• It is correct to say they are in abeyance, however that is not reflected in the actual information of the countries, which in Argentina, Chile, and Norway states they are suspended, a difference. (following on from this, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom do not reflect the abeyance
• Territorial claims are both recognized and disputed. Australia, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK all mutually recognize each others claims. Furthermore, the Argentinian, Chilean, and British claims are disputed, which is even stated on the UK info.
• If Brazil is included, it should also be noted that the USA and Russia have the right (by the antarctic treaty) to claim land

Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

With the three that don't require bullet points, it might be better to just say "Argentina claims parts of Antarctica as part of the Tierra del Fuego Province." ^{+ footnote} I don't know why Brazil is mentioned; there's no need to mention possible future territories, we need only mention those who have made a formal claim. Night w (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)