Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Cook Islands and Niue

Are the Cook Islands and Niue recognised by the UN to be eligible for UN membership, although they haven't applied for that? Did the UN ever grant such recognition in the past to Switzerland, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, South Korea, etc.? And what about Kosovo? What is the position of the UN? Baksando 00:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are suggesting. Kosovo is covered by "This annex lists states that claim sovereignty and have control over (part of) their claimed territories, but due to disputes over their legitimacy, do not have normal diplomatic relations with the majority of sovereign states." or do you think that this is not a fair description of the current position of Kosovo. --PBS (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe this has something to do with the discussion at #Taiwan, above. FWIW, there was a long discussion on the Cook Islands and Niue at Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive 5. The conclusion was that, because the Cook Islands and Niue do not consider themselves to be independent, they fail the inclusion criteria for this list. Pfainuk talk 08:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure where come the conclusion that the Cook Islands do not consider itself to be independent (given that it is having formal diplomatic ties with other governments on its own). If the UN recognise their eligiblity to UN membership, then aren't they already sovereign states (according to the post-1991 criteria)? (And by the way why this has something to do with the disucssion regarding Taiwan?) Baksando 11:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You may find out more about how this decision was made if you read that archive I pointed you at. For example, you will notice the Cook Islands government website that says: "The Cook Islands people, because of their many natural links with New Zealand, have determined to exercise their right of self-government or self-rule or independence -- call it what you will -- but not at this time as a separate, sovereign State." In other words, the Cook Islands do not consider themselves to be a separate sovereign state and thus fail the inclusion criteria.

I mentioned Taiwan in reference to your apparent assumption that this list is based on UN membership, which it is not. That they are eligible for UN membership is not relevant except as evidence for the capacity for foreign relations. But as I pointed out before, that's not the reason. Pfainuk talk 11:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

They can define themselves as whatever they like. But from an academic perspective, I don't think the degree of sovereignty the Cook Islands is having and exercising is more restricted or limited than that of Palau, the Marshall Islands or the Federated States of Micronesia. The Cook Islands and Niue are actually member states of the WHO; and full membership of the WHO is restricted only to sovereign states - Puerto Rico and Tokelau are only associate members. Baksando 00:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly their degree of sovereignty equal to those three. Possibly not. But if we scrap that part of the inclusion criteria we leave the way open to vast numbers of entities that would not normally be considered sovereign states.

For example, per this, Canada allows its provinces to have relations with foreign powers. Two French-speaking provinces of Canada are members of the Francophonie. The French consulate general in Quebec City is accredited to the Quebec government, not the Canadian government. Discount the requirement that entries consider themselves independent sovereign states and all of Canada's provinces unambiguously meet the remaining criteria for inclusion on this list. Suddenly, we're implying that Canada's provinces are sovereign states on a par with the United States, China and Russia - a notion that would be massively POV.

Several international organisations also come pretty damn close to meeting the remaining criteria - the UN, the EU, and others all have relations with non-member governments - but would anyone include the UN on a list of sovereign states? A line has to be drawn somewhere and this seems a very sensible place to draw it. Pfainuk talk 17:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy See

I have added The Holy See into the Unlisted entities list (together with Antarctica, the EU, and Knights of Malta), since its status is the same as the one of the Order of Malta. PeterRet (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

However, unlike the Holy See, which is sovereign over the Vatican City, SMOM has had no sovereign territory (other than a few properties in Italy with extraterritoriality only) since the loss of the island of Malta in 1798. (from "Sovereign Military Order of Malta"). Vatican is widely recognized as a state, while SMOM is considered a "sovereign entity other than a state". Hellerick (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Western Sahara - Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

Western Sahara - geographical region, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic - state. Dinamik (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. What is your point though? sephia karta | di mi 22:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Format

It appears to me that this list is supposed to be formatted like this:

[Flag] common/short name - official/full name

And with the name appearing only once if short and long names are the same. I have updated the list so that it is consistently formatted for all entries. --Kildor (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Montevideo Convention

The Montevideo Convention, the criterium for inclusion in this list is not generally recognised as the definition of a sovereign state. See Sovereign state. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Palestine

I think we've been over this before, but I don't think the Palestine Authorities consider themselves to be the government of the Palestine state declared 20 years ago and recognised by all these states. If this is correct, then the Palestine state, while widely recognised, does not match the criteria for inclusion as it does not control any territory or population, it doesn't exist as a state in practice. Therefore, either Palestine would have to be removed from the list or we would have to adapt our criteria to allow for this and put it into a category of its own, with other such cases, should they exist. sephia karta | di mi 22:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm Palestine is a complicated one, especially considering at the moment its basically controlled by two opposing factions, one in control of the west bank the other controlling Gaza. I agree something should be changed about it. Either it needs to be place on its own in the critera / explanation. So "193 sovereign states, 9 sovereign states lacking general recognition" and 1 something else or it belongs with the European Union / Antartica in the list of entities not included.

As long as it gets mentioned in the entities not included section like EU / Antartica i would support removing them from the list. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Palestine is not a sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

From a practical standpoint, we pretty much have to include the Palestinian Territories IMO. I think that not to do so would fail the spirit of NPOV. That doesn't mean it has to be in the first list, but it does need to be included somewhere.

My understanding of the situation was that both Hamas and the Palestinian National Authority control some territory and some population to some extent, that both form governments and that the Palestinian government has the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Awkward is that there are two governments that both control some territory and that both claim to represent the same state - not a unique situation but one that is handled inconsistently internationally (and therefore by Wikipedia). I would be inclined to conflate these into a single entry as we do currently.

FWIW this map shows the extent of formal Palestinian control (dark green). Areas in Gaza are controlled by Hamas, and those in the West Bank are controlled by the PNA. To what extent formal control equates to actual control, I don't know, beyond the fact that it doesn't include (for example) territorial waters in the case of Gaza. Pfainuk talk 00:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that Palestine is divided into two entities, one controlled by Fatah and one by Hamas, but that is besides the point. What I'm saying is that neither claims to be the government of the Palestinian state mentioned in the article at the moment.sephia karta | di mi 00:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't mind me, I was getting things down on paper (as it were). But I had rather understood was the opposite - that both claimants claimed to be the government of the Palestinian state mentioned in the article - in the form of the internationally recognised Palestinian National Authority - and that appears to be backed up by the articles Governance of the Gaza Strip and Palestinian National Authority. What other government is there, that does not derive its authority from the Palestinian National Authority? Pfainuk talk 01:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I could be wrong here, but to my knowledge the Palestinian Territories and the Palestinian State are not the same thing. Both Fatah and Hamas claim to form the PNA, but the PNA doesn't claim to govern the State of Palestine. Basically, the State of Palestine mentioned in the article is a thing of the past, from the Eighties, before the Oslo accords, before the PNA. The Palestinians want a Palestinian state of course, but that will be a new state. sephia karta | di mi 03:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think our current description is too far from the truth, without going into extensive paragraphs beyond the scope of a list. I think Pfainuk has this about right - Hamas and Fatah both govern portions of the Palestinian Territories. Fatah control the PLO and have both the PNA presidency and a portion of the West Bank; Hamas control the Gaza Strip in the name of the PLO without necessarily having their backing.

So if anything the relationship between the PLO and the Palestinian territories seems closest to that between the Holy See and the Vatican City. I can't think of a discription that would better describe the situation than the one we have on the page, without removing the entry, which I don't think is correct. The likely emergence of a new state if(when?) independence comes is not especially relevant at the moment I don't think --Pretty Green (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that I don't dispute what Pfainuk says about the Palestinian Territories. But the Palestinian Territories are not the Palestinian State. The Palestinian State was proclaimed in exile in North Africa in the eighties. Then came the Oslo agreements and with them, the Palestinian Territories were established, but not as independent state. I think with the Oslo agreements, which I think called for the eventual establishment of a Palestinian State, the 'old' Palestinian State proclaimed a few years before was dead. So the Palestinian State shouldn't be on the list because it doesn't actually exist on the ground, and the Palestinian Territories shouldn't be on the list because they don't claim to be independent. But like I said, that is under the current criteria, we can of course change these. sephia karta | di mi 21:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The uniting factors here, it strikes me, are the PLO and Palestinian National Authority. Now, putting things down on paper again, the article defines the PA as the administrative organization established to govern parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It was created through the Oslo Accords and the PLO then formed the PA government. The article Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority states that [a]fter the formation of the Palestinian Authority, many countries exchanged embassies and delegations with it. which suggests to me that recognitions of the PLO were inherited by the PA post-Oslo.

Since both governments derive their authority from the PA, and it is the PA that appears to be recognised internationally, would it be fair to replace the words "Palestinian Territories" in the article with "Palestinian National Authority"? Pfainuk talk 01:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the PNA recognized internationally, though? Or does it just have relations with states that recognized the State of Palestine? Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) By the looks of things (particularly at Diplomatic missions of Palestine), the latter, except that it also has full-blown diplomatic relations with a few states that don't recognise the State of Palestine, including much of Western Europe.

To be honest, this is confusing me more and more every time I come back to it. Last night I was reading "Palestinian National Authority" as equivalent to "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic". Now I think that was probably wrong. Next time I'll try not to edit at 1am! I'm certainly no expert on the subject (my GCSE history course on the subject set 1993 as an end date) and Wikipedia does not cover the details well - or they may just in fact be as clear as mud.

Per my (current) reading of the situation, with respect to the Montevideo criteria, I would suggest that the PNA is a government that has control of a territory and population in at least part of its claimed territory. The PNA appears to represent the State of Palestine diplomatically in states that recognise that such a thing exists, but it is also given diplomatic status in some that don't. So I think it meets the written requirements of Montevideo. The 1988 declaration of a State of Palestine also gives us the claim of independence.

I think the "Palestinian Territories" is a red herring - I think it's a name given to the physical territory of the West Bank and Gaza rather than a state in any practical sense. So I think it needs changing. What about just calling it "Palestine"? I mean, that's what it's recognised as, and that's the name it claimed in 1988. But the State of Palestine has no land on the ground? Well the organisation that represents it does administer territory. I don't know if it's fair to categorise the PNA as the government of the generally-unrecognised State of Palestine - if only because this isn't exactly an obscure dispute and I've never seen it put like that. If so, Palestine meets the criteria in my book. If not, it doesn't.

So, next question, how should we change the criteria to allow for this case (or to disallow it, if that is the consensus)? Pfainuk talk 21:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the factors you've mentioned are relevant. Statehood is a legal status. Most countries have a stated policy of only recognizing states, not governments. That allows them to carry on diplomatic relations without regard to the legitimacy or effectiveness of one another's governments. Wikipedia editors don't have any role to play in the recognition of states other than to cite what published sources have said.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki recently said that he and Palestinian Justice Minister Ali Kashan had provided proof that Palestine had the right to request a war crimes probe in the territory of their state. That means the PNA is definitely claiming jurisdiction. They said Palestine had been extended de jure recognition by 67 countries, and had bilateral agreements with states in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe. see for example ICC prosecutor considers ‘Gaza war crimes’ probe. Some of those states are members of the ICC's own legislative body, called the Assembly of States. The Prosecutor has no statutory authority to challenge their individual legal determinations about Palestine's statehood.

The UN explains in its own volumes on International law that it has no authority whatsoever to recognize an entity as a state. The power to legally recognize any entity as a state is vested exclusively in other States. For example, UNESCO's volume on International law says: "there is no definition binding on all members of the community of nations regarding the criteria for statehood, and as long as there is no organ which could in casu reach a binding decision on this matter, the decision as to the statehood of an entity depends upon the other members of the community of nations. The governments of various states are the organs responsible for reaching individual decisions in a given case. The decision-making is called the recognition of states. The term signifies the decision of the government of an already existing State to recognize another entity as a State. The act of recognition is in fact a legal decision which depends on the judgment of the recognizing government." see "IV Recognition of States", beginning on page 47 of International Law

All of this was discussed in the aftermath of the 1988 declaration of the State of Palestine. Dr. L.C. Green explained that "recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing state to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or an established government." see page 135-136 of Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1989, Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990, ISBN 0792304500 harlan (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia

Note that this is not a list of UN members with UN provisional references. It is a list of de facto and de jure sovereign nations with their commonly used short name and their constitutional long name. Thus Taiwan - Republic of China (not a UN member), but China - People's Republic of China. It also includes two ambiguous short names--Congo - Republic of Congo, and Congo - Democratic Republic of Congo. Every state is listed with its short name and its constitutional long name, thus Macedonia - Republic of Macedonia. There is an appropriate note that lists the provisional reference used by the UN and some other international organizations for it, but listing "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is not appropriate as the long name since it is not Macedonia's long form constitutional name. Most countries of the world use "Republic of Macedonia" in their bilateral relations with Macedonia. Once again, this is not a list of "UN members", but a list of sovereign states with their common English short form names and their constitutional long form names. (Taivo (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

I agree. UN POV is not NPOV. We should, of course, mention the FYROM name in the notes - as we do - but we should take the long-form name to be the one used by the state itself - "Republic of Macedonia". Similarly, we refer to Taiwan's long-form name as "Republic of China" and not "Taiwan (Province of China)". Pfainuk talk 17:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confused by these <ref> tags. Yes, the official name should reflect its "internal use" — "The Republic of Macedonia". But the naming dispute should be mentioned in the last column, not in a footnote: Widely recognized member of the UN. Though the country's sovereignty is not disputed, Greece disputes its name. Therefore, the republic is referred to by the UN and a number of countries and international organizations as "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Hellerick (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a reference to Macedonia naming dispute in the second column. It doesn't need the extensive comment about Greece, but a reference to the Wikipedia article on the dispute is appropriate. Readers interested in why it's called "former..." can refer to the Wikipedia article. (Taivo (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, it's okay now. Hellerick (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If the naming dispute should be ref'd, then it should be to a reliable external party, not an exchange of opinions by Wikipedia editors. RashersTierney (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I removed Talk page reference again. (Taivo (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Discussion at Talk:Sovereign state

A delete/move discussion at Talk:Sovereign state could have naming implications for this list. The proposers argue that all state, including sub-national ones, are sovereign, and they want to move the article to State (politics). — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realm

There are 53 member states of the Commonwealth of Nations but only sixteen of those are Commonwealth realms. A Commonwealth realm is a state where Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning monarch. See [1]. Orange Tuesday (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up. I thought you were implying that all members states of the Commonwealth were monarchies with Elizabeth as queen. Perhaps we could re-add the information to note those states that are members of the Commonwealth of Nations, which is a significant international organization. That is, instead of removing the info entirely just reword it to make it actually correct? See also WP:PRESERVE. --Jayron32 03:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I have no objection to adding Commonwealth membership information on the list, if that's the sort of thing that belongs on here. I just didn't want countries labelled as Commonwealth Realms incorrectly. Orange Tuesday (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Intro needs slightly changing

I think the intro might need slightly changing. At the moment the intro reads ..

". This is a list of sovereign states, containing 203 entries, giving an overview of states around the world with information on the status and recognition of their sovereignty. It is arranged alphabetically. It includes both states widely recognized to be de jure sovereign and states that claim de jure sovereignty and exercise de facto control over some territory, but which are not generally recognised."

After reading that introduction it sounds as though there is a single list with both all in alphabetical order. Would it be better to point out in the intro there are two lists in alphabetical order, one for the states widely recognized to be sovereign and a second list for those which arnt?? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. Since the page is 116kB++, shouldn't we split it into 2 different lists to avoid the confusion and cross-ref them? --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree to a change to reflect the way the list is organised. This is not two lists, it's one list split into two parts. I think the distinction between these two concepts is significant.

As such I do not approve the notion of a split - this would involve splitting the list and would have significant implications on the NPOV balance. Pfainuk talk 19:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right about the NPOV, since I've noticed this list gets re-worded (vandalized) almost on a daily basis the way it is now! --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

North and South Korea

Should North Korea be in the N list and South Korea in the S? South Africa is in the s list. Is there a reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.148.126 (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Because "South Africa" is the official name of the country, whereas "North Korea" and "South Korea" are just the terms we use to distinguish between the two states which refer to themselves as "Korea". Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

United States of America

How can these sentences both be true?
"The United States is a federation divided into states, a federal district, and one territory." (emphasis added)
"The United States has sovereignty over the following (inhabited) territories and commonwealths:

• American Samoa
• Guam
• Northern Mariana Islands
• Puerto Rico
• United States Virgin Islands".

Try replacing the words "one territory" in the first sentence with "five major territories" Awg1010 (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Territories of the United States / and this page explains that there is one incorporated territory which is treated like its part of the USA (with the US constitution applying etc) the other territories are unincoporated where they are treated like possessions or the US just has sovereignty over them. thats probably what its on about but could be worded better i guess. Although i confess id never heard about this one territory before now, only the 50 states + D.C lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo

What About Kosovo.--70.52.225.29 (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC) It is not on the list.--70.52.225.29 (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

because kosovo does not have full recognition it is found near the bottom of the article after the main list which is only for fully recognized sovereign states. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Languages

Before just ripping and tearing through the languages listed here, each should be evaluated. Deleting Ukrainian from Kazakhstan makes sense, but deleteing Welsh from United Kingdom and Catalan from Spain doesn't. Both Welsh and Catalan are regionally official languages and should be represented in the list of forms. Instead of just ripping and tearing, please make a list of the languages you think should be deleted. About half of them can be, but the other half should not be. Also, Feyday, you are an experienced editor so you should know the process and not chide me in your Edit Summary for reverting you. The process is 1) Make a change (you did), 2) Get reverted (I objected to your change), 3) DISCUSS on Talk Page and reach consensus on change. You reverted my revert so you are the one who needs to remember to talk on the Talk Page after you get reverted the first time. You didn't utter a peep here on the Talk Page after you saw that your edit was controversial. (Taivo (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

The first note on the page says: "the official languages of the state" -- just the official languages of the state are in the list and the reader can get the rest of the info from the respective country article. Regional languages are not allowed in this list. P.S. I reverted the change to the page, I did not add anything to the page, see the history, It was You who re-added the new languages to the article. Please get consensus for Your addition. feydey (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The regional languages have been added to this article over time. I did not add them. Since there was no objection when they were added in the past, then they become part of the status quo and your deletion is the "new information". The note is not carved in stone and can be changed itself. Right now it is necessary for you to gain consensus on what should and should not be listed in languages. If it is the case that only official languages can be listed, then the United States should have no language listed since there is no official language in the U.S. There is only the most common language. Indeed, since government notices must be written in Spanish in a wide region of the U.S., then the name should also occur in Spanish. But there is no official language of the U.S. So the contention that only official languages and not major minority languages, especially languages which are regionally official, falls flat. Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? (Taivo (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

I have nothing against the debate whether English is the de facto language in USA or not. People keep adding regional languages despite a clear note not to include them, ignoring the note doesn't make them part of the status quo. They just don't read note 1: The names of the items in the list are given in English and include both an English version of the short official names (e.g. Afghanistan) and an English version of the (longer) official names (e.g. Islamic Republic of Afghanistan), as well as the same names in the (de jure or de facto) official languages on national level of the entity. If there is need to change this then a consensus has to be established, until then the various regional languages can be checked from the respective country articles. The page is now 116 kilobytes long and IMO there is no practical reason to bloat the article. feydey (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

While there are languages that shouldn't be here (like Ukrainian under Kazakhstan), Welsh and Catalan versions of UK and Spain are totally appropriate since those languages have a higher level of official status. Spanish should also be listed under U.S. But I want to know what others think of the issue. (Taivo (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

It should be noted that Spanish is not an official language of the United States. There are many people who speak Spanish in the United States, but it is not an official language. There is no need to list the name in every language minority of a country. In cases where the majority and official language of a country is English, the English name only will suffice. In cases where the majority and official language of a country is something other than English, then the name in that one other language should suffice. There is also a big difference between an officially recognized language, or a language with an internally recognition as a "special status" and the language of government and business in that country. While Welsh does enjoy special recognition in the U.K., it is not really a widespread language of primary usage in the UK, even in Wales. The situation in Spain is similar. Castillian Spanish is the only recognized "official" language of the national government. In some of Spain's autonomous communities, other languages are officially recognized locally, see [2]. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But the argument that says, "only official languages that have a national spread" are valid negates all the official languages of India, which, except for English, are regional languages and not spread over the whole country. (Taivo (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

But that is a very different situation than say, Spanish in the U.S. or Welsh in the U.K. Trying to compare the situation in India to the US or UK is an oversimplification in a way that makes them appear similar where they are not. There needs to be some standard beyond "The language is spoken somewhere in the country" for us to list the official name in that language; it is impractical to list the name of the United States or India or other countries in every single language one may encounter there. --Jayron32 03:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What about Aranese in Spain? Aranese (Occitan) is oficial in the Aran Valley in Catalunya.

By the way, I think Spanish should be included in th United States. Since no language is actually oficial in the country, the most spoken languages should be included. --Nauki (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Morocco vs Western Sahara

Moroccan section states "Morocco claims sovereignty over the Western Sahara and controls most of it, which is disputed by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic."

Western Sahara section states "De facto independent state recognized by 46 other states."

I don't understand it. Is it possible for a state to be independent even though you only have control over half your country? --

Mallerd (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Consider Lebanon during the Syrian occupation or Iraq during the early years following the U.S. invasion or South Vietnam in the early 70s. (Taivo (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

Of course. Thank you for opening my eyes. In that case Tibet is already independent, eh? Ciao Mallerd (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Tibet didn't control half of its territory, in fact, it didn't control any territory. — Emil J. 09:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Republic of China controls much less than half of its claimed territory, but it's still independent. So to answer your question: Yes. It is possible. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not being sarcastic when I said In that case Tibet is already independent, eh?. It was merely a remark that wasn't really necessairy. I understand it now. Kind of a foolish question to begin with. Mallerd (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

Hey folks,

Can we semi-protect this article? -- PK2 (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't do it at the moment because there has been relatively little vandalism, by IP addresses, many of them are misguided edits but made with good intent. --PBS (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

South Ossetia within Georgia

The article states about Georgia:

Widely recognized member of the UN. Georgia has three divisions with autonomous statuses:

• Adjara
• Abkhazia
• South Ossetia

But South Ossetia's autonomous status was formally abolished on 11 December 1990. The very term "South Ossetia" is tabooed in Georgia. It's called "Tskhinvali region" instead without implying any official status behind it. — Hellerick (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Right. — Emil J. 16:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

Tag added for this which contradicts other sections of this article and even other WP articles:

Two states, recognized by Abkhazia, South Ossetia and by the other of the two: Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh

MainBody (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo

Kosovo is not a sovereign state so it should not be in the list at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.176.73 (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a debatable idea. There are certainly valid arguements to be made on both sides of the issue of Kosovar sovereignty. As such, Wikipedia does not take sides, and the list does a decent job of dealing with it; for example including Kosovo in the "other states" section, with copious notes explaining why some consider it a sovereign state but why others do not. If Wikipedia excluded it entirely, it would amount to taking sides. It is much better to note the dispute than to ignore it as though it was a settled issue, which it is not. --Jayron32 20:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32. Kosovo is a de facto sovereign state, not a de jure sovereign state at the present time. Its placement with other generally unrecognized de facto sovereign states such as Abkhazia, SADR, etc. in the "other states" category is appropriate. (Taivo (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Kosovo is under UN administration and as such is not a sovereign state. It is not fully recognized within EU and other UN members worldwide.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.176.52 (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No one is talking about recognition. It is a de facto state and all agree that it is not yet a de jure state. (Taivo (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Well, that isn't strictly correct either. In the opinion of 60-odd states, Kosovo is independent in both a de facto and de jure sense. It would probably be most accurate to say that Kosovo is a sovereign state under the Declarative theory of statehood (in that it has a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states), and that the international community is divided over whether it qualifies as a sovereign state under the Constitutive theory of statehood. Either way, it should definitely be where it is. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. (Taivo (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Russian Autonomous Regions

This long list of semi-autonomous regions in the entry for Russia needs to be deleted. Otherwise, then every Indian nation in the United States (which holds a similar status), needs to be included. This list is not about "autonomy", but about "sovereignty". Russia is the sovereign entity, the United States is the sovereign entity. The semi-autonomous regions do not hold sovereignty. (Taivo (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Indeed, delete away. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Information about the autonomous areas within a country is relevant information about the extent of that country's sovereignty. We include these areas for the same reason that we include dependencies and mention whether or not a state is a federation. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, when you say Indian nation, do you mean Federally recognized tribes or Indian reservations? Because neither of those are really analogous to Russia's republics. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are many similarities. Of course, no dependency relationship is exactly like the dependency relationships in other countries or even like the relationship other dependencies of the same country have. Nothing is exactly alike. Puerto Rico's relationship to the Federal government is different than Midway's relationship to the Federal government. The relationship that Northern Ireland has with the U.K. is not identical to the relationship that Scotland has with the U.K. and the relationship that Texas has with the Federal government is not identical to the relationship that Utah has with the Federal government. And I'm talking about those tribes that are recognized as "nations"--each has a slightly different relationship with the federal government and with tribal lands than others. Many similarities. But if you are insisting on some kind of identical similarity then that is a naive viewpoint to take. These are recognized as "sovereign", semi-autonomous nations just as the Russian autonomous regions are. The U.N. has even allowed them speaking rights in the past as if they were sovereign nations in the context of this list even. If you're going to support listing Wales, etc., then you've also got to support including the Russian autonomous regions, Indian tribes, the constituent kingdoms of Uganda, the federated states of Malaysia, the Länder of Germany, the constituent parts of South Africa, the states of the U.S., etc. Nothing is ever exactly the same, so if you're going to support one "special case", then you have to support all the special cases, since everything then becomes a "special case". (Taivo (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

I'm not insisting on identical similarity at all. I just think you're drawing a poor analogy. The Russian republics are top-level administrative territorial entities, which the Federally recognized tribes are most certainly not. They're just an entirely different kind of thing. And I won't even get into your "recognized as a nation" thing, as that seems like a completely arbitrary distinction. (Why only nations and not tribes or bands?)

Look, here's what I'm trying to get at here: You don't have to support mentioning all the things in a very broad category just because you support mentioning one of the things in that category. If we want to write a good article, we need to take context into account and edit ourselves accordingly. We should be looking at each country on an individual basis and deciding how best to clearly and concisely explain the extent of the sovereignty of that particular country. In some cases that will mean we list things for one country that we wouldn't necessarily list for another country. But that's good. That's the approach we should be taking. That'll lead us to create a more informative article that better explains the complicated reality we're dealing with.

As I said above, I don't support listing Wales for the sake of listing Wales. I'm not trying to come up with some kind of criteria that privileges Wales over other subnational entities. What I'm trying to do is to come up with the note that most helps the average reader understand the nature of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. That doesn't have anything to do with the inclusion criteria of the list itself, and it doesn't have anything to do with the entry on Russia. The only thing it has to do with is the little paragraph next to the United Kingdom entry. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are not 'Russian republics'. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So, basically, all I want to know is can I now edit the United Kingdom part without fear of it getting deleted five minutes later? I am in full support of any other country being edited that helps the average reader understand the sovereignity of said country, as Orange Tuesday so clearly put it. In all honesty I can't believe this debate has come about by something so petty as me adding four little flags separately under the UK instead of having them grouped under a hyperlink instead!!Craigieboy2001 (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Because your "four little flags" turns into dozens and dozens of "little flags" so that the list becomes more unusable than usable. (Taivo (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

You're talkin nonsense. It will become more usable because there will be a wide range of information available to the reader (like me, who was looking to find said information in the first place in this list). After all, isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? A fountain of information? Not people like you dictating what can and cannot be written in it. Craigieboy2001 (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not me "dictating" but a discussion of the problems with treating X instance as something that won't apply to Y. I wonder why you came here to find information on Scotland actually. Surely you knew that Scotland was a part of the UK and that the word "sovereignty" means the top-order of government. And if you didn't know, why didn't you go to the article on Scotland directly? What information about Scotland did you expect to find here that you didn't find at that article? The greatest utility of this list is an enumeration of the regions of the world that are sovereign (which Scotland is not). I have used it on many occasions as a convenient place to get a list of sovereign states for building data bases (you don't want to miss Gabon or Nauru in a list you created from memory). If you want to know something about Scotland, I would think that going to the Scotland article directly would be far more useful. Since there is no index of dependencies attached to this list, then using it to find out "who owns what island" seems rather labor-intensive. Typing "St Helena" into the search box is a lot more efficient that starting with a list of sovereign states in the hopes that St Helena might be found by perusing the list. I seriously doubt that very many people at all start their search for information about Greenland here. The arguments about enabling people to find things easier seem to be rather thin based on that. (Taivo (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

(edit conflict × 2) All of that information is available in this encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean it all needs to be present on this page. The link to Federal subjects of Russia (already present in the explanatory text) is very useful, but the re-statement of 21 of those subjects as "ethnic autonomies" is superfluous for this list. I think the principles of Wikipedia:Summary style are relevant here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, so let's stick with exclusion concerning 'England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland'. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If the excessive use of flags is part of the problem, then why not reserve flagicons and bullet lists for dependencies and make everything else plain text? This is the way France's entry is formatted right now and it looks like pretty reasonable to me. You could include "(England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland)" on a single line like we currently do with "(French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion)" and it would barely add to the length of the article. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not the "excessive use of flags". It's the fact that this is not a list for every single country to have its primary contiguous divisions to be listed. No one comes here to find out about "Scotland". They go directly to Scotland. Cluttering this list with the primary contiguous constituents of every country is, well, clutter. (Taivo (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

and I'm not saying every country should have its primary constituents parts listed here but there are a few territories in the world which people consistently expect to be on this list. Like it or not you're going to have misguided users like Craigieboy2001 wondering where Scotland is when they click on this list. So let's just throw them a bone, put Scotland where it should be (under the UK and clearly described as an integral part of the UK), and hope to inform a few people of the actual nature of these places. We would only need to do this for a handful of places that wouldn't qualify as dependencies, because the same places always come up in these discussions. The constituent countries of the UK, the overseas regions of France, Aland, Svalbard and Jan Mayen, Hong Kong and Macau, Maybe Tibet and the other autonomous provinces of China. Bam, done. We make a few exceptions and make it clear that they are exceptions and there we have it. End of the slippery slope. The list stays at 203 entries, we don't die from a clutter overload, and the page is just a little more worry-free as a result. We don't need to put the U.S. States on here because no one is going to show up on the talk page wondering why Nevada isn't here. Same for 95% of first-level administrative divisions in the world. It's just that tiny handful that present a problem. So let's anticipate that problem and explicitly deal with it. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And no one is going to show up at this list looking for Scotland either. They're going to type "Scotland" in the search box and voilá. They're at Scotland. At this point, no consensus has been reached on the matter, so Craigieboy, your addition is premature. (Taivo (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

By that logic no one is going to show up at this list looking for anything since they can just type it into the search bar! Look, regardless of whether or not they come here specifically to find information on Scotland, people are going to show up at this list expecting to find Scotland in one form or another. Anyone who has watched this page for long enough knows that. Craigieboy himself is a walking talking example. I'm not saying we should indulge their errors and give Scotland its own entry or pretend that it has a status it doesn't, but I am saying we should anticipate that error and pre-emptively address it. We already mention that the United Kingdom is divided into constituent countries. Why not just explicitly state what those four countries are? All it would take is a few words in a little set of brackets. It's a minor change, it doesn't require us to do anything to the inclusion criteria of the list, and it doesn't force us to make any other changes. It's just a simple little extra note of clarification on a single entry on the list, exactly like we already have on France. What is so harmful about that? Orange Tuesday (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

By how to people get to this list in the first place? They have to type "List of sovereign states" in the search box. If they're looking for Scotland, why in the world would they type that exact phrase in a search? This isn't one of the "portals" to Wikipedia. You have to know what you're looking for (this list specifically) to get here in the first place. (Taivo (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

You couldn't be more wrong. The "Country" field in {{Infobox settlement}}, which is seen on a few hundred thousand articles, links to this article. Most visitors to this page are by clicking on a wikilink from another page. And it gets about 3000 visitors per day. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's interesting. But it still shows that this page is not a primary "portal" to Wikipedia--it's not the place people are going first. It's a place they visit after they're already here. Some settlement boxes have "country" linked here (like Brigham City), but other settlement boxes don't (like Rivne and Dnipropetrovsk). But there is nothing ambiguous or confusing about "country"--to the vast majority of English speakers outside the UK, it means the same as "sovereign state". But even if a confused Brit stumbles onto the city page of a UK city, there is no possible confusion. Cities of the UK (such as Belfast and Glasgow and Edinburgh) don't have the {{Infobox settlement}} like the other cities of the world, but have the {{Infobox UK place}} which has two entries--"country", which links to Countries of the United Kingdom and "sovereign state" which links here. So even if someone is looking at a city of the UK, they are going to see two different things: "country" where Scotland, etc. are listed; and "sovereign state" where United Kingdom is listed. There's still no possible confusion between whether one is seeking Scotland or one is seeking United Kingdom. (Taivo (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

About By how to people get to this list in the first place?. Here is a list of redirects to this article:

• Countries of the World, CountriesOfTheWorld, Countries of the world2
• CountriesA through CountriesZ
• List of independent countries
• List of National Titles
• List of Countries, List of countries
• List of countries by name
• Independent States
• List of sovereign state flags, List of national flags (?!) (fixed)
• List of countries and other territorial entities
• List of independent states
• List of states
• List of countries in 1999 through List of countries in 2008 (?!)
• Countries of the world
• List of nations
• List of Countries on Earth
• Countries of the Earth
• List of official endonyms of present-day nations and states

We have to either create separate articles for List of countries, List of states etc., or keep all the relevant information within this article. Hellerick (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the change to the redirect List of national flags so that it redirects to here List of sovereign states. Craigieboy2001 what do you think a country is? Or put another way which reliable source do you think defines what a country is? -- PBS (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In semi-defence of Craigieboy2001, I don't think he's advocating putting England et. al. into the main list (alphabetized under "E", "S", etc.) but enumerated in the explanatory notes, much like French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion are listed in the explanatory notes for France. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I'm not sure how your questions about what defines a "country" are related to that position. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Put simply, all my argument has ever been about is as follows: - I came across the page purely by typing 'List of countries' in the search box and it took me straight here. - I was never looking for a specific country at all, I was just musing over the list in general as I found it interesting. - I came to the UK section and noticed that England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales were missing from the list. - In my view, this list now looked incomplete to me as I have always thought of these four places as countries that make up the country 'United Kingdom' as a whole. - Regarding that, it then seemed to me that the list didn't contain all the information I was looking for, because I wanted to see, and became interested in seeing EVERYTHING that made the country. - I edited the UK to include the four "countries" separately because in my opinion that would make the list complete and be just the same as the China section, Russia Section, Netherlands Section etc. - I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was presenting information and adding to current information until the 'listing' was substantionally complete as to warrant no further edits. And in my opinion listing these four countries under the UK heading separately would make the UK section complete. - I never intended everyone to kick up such a fuss with it all and now wish I had of just stuck to reading my "world Factbook" paperback book where it does list every country in the UK under the UK sovereign country page!Craigieboy2001 (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

When England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland obtain independance, then they'll be added. PS: See Countries of the United Kingdom, concerning those 4 countries. PS: I'm not angry, that you brought the E/S/W/NI stuff up. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, Craigieboy, I'm not angry either. I may be blunt, but I'm not angry. Right now, it's good to be letting others put in their two cents on the issue. (Taivo (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

To me including the English countries in the explanatory section seems rather harmless. I can understand the argument for only including 'special' bits, like Hong Kong, Isle of Man and various autonomous republics/regions, but this policy is not consistently applied at the moment, if you consider the French overseas departments (This list is not about geography, it's about administration. And even considering geography, Alaska, Northern Ireland or the Andaman islands aren't attached to their mainland either.), the two Bosnian halves, or the Columbian Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina. I would even say that the English countries are administratively more special than the French and Columbian overseas departments, and should rather be included. Also if we name the two Bosnian halves (which I think we should), we should also name the three Belgian parts, which are so autonomous in some policy areas that they can sign international treaties.

With respect to the American states, German laender or Spanish autonomous regions, what makes them different is that they are administratively normal subdivisions, all with equal powers. The English countries are not, they are all actually in a different situation from one another. In fact, you could even say that administratively, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are autonomous and 'special' parts of the UK and should be in the description area based on that criterium, whereas England is the rump that is the 'normal' part of the UK which should not be in the description area. sephia karta | di mi 15:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't have put it better Sephia. This has been my argument all along. Craigieboy2001 (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom - Country Listing

I feel that the United Kingdom section warrants having each territory within it listed separately as individual countries for the following reasons.

- If you look at each page on wikipedia separately for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales you will see that they are regarded as countries and NOT states, territories or autonomous regions of the United Kingdon.

- The United Kingdom in itself is a union of four COUNTRIES (Kingdoms) unlike the United States or Canada which are a union of states and territories for the latter.

- There are no other sovereign nations in the world that actually consist of COUNTRIES making up the sovereign nation and not territories.

- Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales all have their own governments formed with devolution from the main United Kingdom government in London. In Scotland this is even more apparant because they have their own legal system too which is separate from England's, Wales's and Northern Ireland's.

- If you look at the latest edition of the World Factbook it will also state that England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are COUNTRIES that form the United Kingdom and not territories or states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigieboy2001 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is titled "List of sovereign states", not "List of countries". Those four are simply not sovereign states. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are Countries of the United Kingdom they are not sovereign states and they do not belong in line with other sovereign countries. In truth the main reason we have this article here instead of at List of countries was to deal with the problem caused by the UK countries. I strongly oppose any alteration to the current methods used. We accept they are countries but they do not belong in line with sovereign countries which could seriously mislead and confuse people. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, no matter what the history of acquisition of the parts of the UK, they are not "special" in the sense of this list. Indeed, Texas (an independent republic), California (an independent republic), and Hawaii (an independent kingdom) were acquired by the United States in ways that were quite similar to the ways that Scotland, Wales, etc. were acquired by the UK--by treaty. In fact, if you get right down to it, the various Indian tribes of the U.S. are even more special than the states because they are, by law, "sovereign nations", with their own law enforcement, legislatures, and legal systems independent of the states where they are located. They are only subject to overall Federal authority. (Taivo (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

I partly agree what your saying over sovereign states. But firstly, this page re-directs to it automatically when you type "List of countries" so it is a bit misleading. Secondly, one could argue that if you are listing Hong Kong and Macau as seperate entries under China, then England, Wales. N. Ireland and Scotland should be listed under United Kingdom. Just like China, as a sovereign nation, has sovereignity over Hong Kong and Macau, the United Kingdom as a sovereign nation and whole government has soveregnity over England, N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigieboy2001 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland shouldn't be included. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Listing Macao and Hong Kong separately under China is not akin to listing the four constituent parts of the UK. Hong Kong and Macao have special status within China. Scotland, Wales, England, and N Ireland do not hold special status within the UK--they are the four primary constituent parts of the UK, just as Yunnan, Szechuan, etc. are the primary constituent parts of China and the 50 states are the primary constituent parts of the US. They aren't special parts. We don't list the primary constituent parts of sovereign states here--only the special pieces. (Taivo (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Your assertion that there is no other sovereign state in the world composed of countries is not technically true. The subdivisions of Germany which we English-speakers call "States" are in German known as "Länder", or countries. That being said, I see no harm in listing the constituent countries under the UK entry, provided we make it clear that they are integral parts of the United Kingdom and not dependencies. (Didn't we used to do this anyway? I feel like they were on the list very recently). Orange Tuesday (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to list the primary constituent parts of the UK, then we must allow the 50 US states, the Canadian provinces, the German Länder, the Brazilian states, the Chinese provinces, etc. That is, once you list the primary constituent parts of one sovereign state, then you allow the listing of the primary constituent parts of every other country. The four primary parts of the UK are not special cases. (Taivo (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

I don't agree with that line of thinking actually. We shouldn't be worried about treating every subnational entity the same as every other subnational entity; our job should be to create an article which is most helpful and informative to the typical reader. There is obviously a fairly common belief that these particular territories are in some way "countries" in a way that other subnational entities are not. In that respect, they are "special", even if their constitutional status within the UK is not particularly remarkable. Their explained presence on the list would probably more helpful to the average reader than their unexplained absence. Orange Tuesday (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The only people who would miss these four subnational entities are British. Americans aren't going to miss "Scotland" in this list. They might wonder why the states aren't listed when Northern Ireland is there. People aren't coming to this list looking for subnational constituents. They are coming to this list to find a list of sovereign states. If they want primary subnational entities, they can look at the individual articles on the sovereign states themselves. Once you open the floodgates to primary subnational entities, you have no reasonable argument to prevent the listing of 50 US states, the Canadian provinces, the German Länder, the Mexican states, each island of the Solomon Islands, etc. (Taivo (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Well first off I disagree that only the British would expect to see Scotland on the list. If anything, I would expect the misconception to come from readers who are less familiar with the constitutional structure of the United Kingdom. Certainly the average American would expect see Scotland before they expected to see Kansas. But in any case we're not talking about changing the inclusion criteria of the list itself here. We're talking about editing the explanatory notes for a single entry. That section exists to aid of the reader and to clarify the entry, and it doesn't have to be entirely consistent from one sovereign state to the next. This is why we mention, for example, that French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion are all integral parts of France. Because it's a common misconception that those territories are dependencies. Or why we mention the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska. We're allowed to make special exceptions for special cases, and the constituent countries are special by virtue of the expectations of the people who are going to be reading this page. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The consensus here is exclude England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There have been a lot of news reports recently about the constituent kingdoms of Uganda and how one American just became king of one of those kingdoms. Shall we list the constituent kingdoms of Uganda? Or how about someone curious about "The Navajo Nation"? Where is that nation? They have their own laws, police, and legislative body and are "sovereign nations". Where are they? You open a floodgate of primary (and, in some cases, secondary) subordinate units. Once you list primary subordinate units in once place, then you must be willing to list them everywhere. Why are the overseas departments of France different? Because of that critical word: overseas. They are not part of the contiguous main body of France, as Scotland, N. Ireland, Wales and England are contiguous primary subordinate parts of the main body of the U.K. (Of course using that argument, we should be listing Alaska and Hawaii under the U.S. since they are not contiguous with the main body. But we can leave that alone for now.) (Taivo (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

I don't think we should leave that alone, actually. That's the entire point. There's no real difference between French Guiana and Hawaii in an absolute sense. They're former dependencies that are now integral parts of their states despite being overseas. But we treat France and the United States differently for the purposes of this article because we're tailoring the list to increase its usefulness. We can treat the United Kingdom differently as well. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

But the four constituent parts of the UK are different than Alaska and Hawaii. They are like the 48 contiguous US states. You're trying to imply that they are something different and they are not. They are the four primary contiguous constituents of the UK. That's all. They are not any different than Kansas or Texas or Alberta or Bavaria or Yunnan or Minas Gerais or Oaxaca or .... (Taivo (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Or French Guiana, or Guadeloupe, or Republica Srpska, or Easter Island, or Jan Mayen, but we mention all of these because it clarifies the information on the list and aids the reader. I'm not talking about changing any inclusion criteria, I'm talking about changing the notes on the United Kingdom entry and changing the phrase "divided into four parts" to "divided into four parts (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland)". Does that really throw everything into such chaos? Can we not handle throwing the reader a bone in this one particular case? Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I still feel that England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales need to be listed under the entry for the United Kingdom. I am not saying that, for example, England should be listed under 'E' as a country itself. I am merely stating that when I first come across this page I felt that the information under United Kingdom was not substantial enough for what I was looking for, and I felt that the listing was bias compared to China and Russia for example. I am an Australian, so I am not being bias towards the UK and it's not just the British that would expect to see Scotland on the list, as Taivo states. I am still reading the argument for states and territories should then be listed if you are going to list the countries for the UK. Once again, states and territories are NOT countries, and therefore have no need to be listed under their corresponding country lists. But England, N. Ireland, Scotland and Wales are countries inside a sovereign country, and because of that, I feel they warrant inclusion under the UK section. You also say that Hong Kong and Macau have special status within China. Well, Scotland, N.I, Wales etc also have special status within the UK with their own divolved governments and law systems. The recent media case of the Lockerbie Bomber in the news shows this, where SCOTLAND and not the UK had the only power and the say to free the bomber. Therefore, unlike Yunnan and Szechuan which are just regions of China, the countries of the UK DO have special status. Craigieboy2001 (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Craigieboy2001

England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland don't belong on this list. PS: I don't see the purpose in continuing this discussion folks; have fun. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There's not a single argument you've listed about the constituent parts of the UK that doesn't also apply to 1) the states of the US (which have their own laws, legislatures, police forces, etc., and where criminals prosecuted under state law are not subject to federal sanctions without separate federal indictment, trial, etc. under federal laws) or 2) the sovereign nations known as Indian tribes in the US (which also have their own laws, legislatures, police forces, etc.). Just because the UK calls its primary constituent parts "countries" doesn't make them any different than the states of the U.S. I know that British subjects like to make a big deal of the "difference", but there really isn't any difference other than in name. The United Kingdom is composed of 4 principal parts, The United States is composed of 50 principal parts, etc. (Taivo (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

This whole discussion is just a floodgate of problems. The simple fact is that the relationship between principal constituent parts of sovereign states differs from country to country. The relationship between the government of the part and the government of the whole is unique in every single country. So a case could be made that every constituent part of every country in the world is special and not like anywhere else. The line must be drawn to prevent this list from devolving into a "List of sovereign states with all their primary dependent pieces". The UK contains "countries", Russia contains "republics", Uganda contains "kingdoms", the US contains "nations" and "states", etc. (Taivo (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Russia's republics are already listed. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between the two. England, Scotland and Wales were all sovereign countries before becoming a sovereign nation under the UK. This history dates back hundreds of years whereas the states of the USA have never really been proper countries, but states just added to the USA as a sovereign country gradually, just like my native Australia. Your argument for Native Indians etc could also be likened to Aborginal lands. Therefore, I see no reason not to list these under the main soveign nations headings too, as they have special status too, like Hong Kong, Crimeia etc. Also, in terms of identity, people of the USA tend to call themselves American, people of Australia are Australian, people of Germany are German etc wheras people in the UK call themselves by their country nationality, eg Scottish. They are also represented in the EU as seperate countries as well as under the UK and the EU and the UN respects this too. Also the majority of sovereign countries around the world refer to England, Scotland, Wales etc as countries themselves wheras the states of the USA are never referred to as countries. In world sporting events, participants of the UK also perform under their seperate countries and not just the UK on it's own e.g. football, cricket, rugby etc. Wheras the states of the USA and other country territories and regions do not (with the exception of Hong Kong, Macau etc, which also backs up the argument of the UK countries being listed seperately too). Last but not least, I feel that Wikipedia is an information source, and when I came across this page, as an Australian citizen I felt it gave a very bias view of a sovereign nation I was researching and not the correct information I would deem reasonable for this sort of page. And as Orange Tuesday has stated 'Russia's republics are listed, so why not the UK's, Uganda's, Germany's etc

The entire list needs to be trimmed down, to include only the sovereign countries. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The list only does contain sovereign countries. If you're talking about removing all the additonal information on the right hand side there, I think that's just going to make the list less informative and more confusing. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's already confusing. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In what way? Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's called the list of sovereign states. This should be reflected in the article, therefore trim it down. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is reflected in the article. The list contains 203 entries and each one of them is a sovereign state. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, trim it down to 'only' the soverign states. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, are you actually proposing to remove all the additional information? That doesn't make any sense at all. That would be like going into the List of Presidents of the United States and taking out all the dates and vice presidents and political parties because none of those things are Presidents. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, delete all the additional information. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not in agreement with GoodDay in terms of eliminating all the extra information. Some of it is useful, such as indicating where Greenland belongs since it is not a primary, contiguous constituent of Denmark. However, Craigieboy (I assume that's his unsigned long comment above) doesn't know his US history as well as his Australian history. Texas, California, and Hawaii were all independent sovereign nations before becoming a part of the United States. And many of the main constituent parts of Germany were independent, sovereign states before uniting as Germany in the 19th century (long after the "countries" of the United Kingdom were united). The same goes for the independent and sovereign kingdoms that were combined to form Malaysia and Indonesia. And South Africa is also formed from previously independent units. Is that the criterion you want to use? I don't think so. The only criteria we can use is the one that is currently (mostly) used: list only constituents that are not contiguous with the main body of the state. (Russia needs to be trimmed, IMO, or else we need to list all the recognized Indian nations in the US and Canada.) If the criterion you want to establish is that formerly independent units must be listed separately, then be prepared for the flood of additional information that ensues--Texas, California, Hawaii, the German Länder, the Orange Free State, etc. And if you want to include Wales, then you have to acknowledge every unit that was independent at any time from about the 12th century on. Italy includes dozens of such units and Germany includes hundreds of them. Then we get to the thousands of islands of Indonesia, the Philippines, Micronesia, Melanesia, etc. that were all independent, sovereign nations before colonization in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. What a nightmare. Trim Russia's entry to remove the "republics" and close the floodgates as best we can. This article is not about every sovereign nation that has ever existed or where it belongs now, it is about contemporary sovereign states. As an aid to identifying where non-contiguous parts of a state are, it has useful notes to attach Greenland, etc. to their "sovereign capital". But listing primary, contiguous parts of a state just because they were historically sovereign is not a reasonable gate to open. (Taivo (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Yes, it's all very well saying that Texas, California, Hawaii, and the independent sovereign countries that now form Malaysia, Indonesia, South Africa etc were once sovereign nations but they're not anymore. The point I am simply trying to mke is that countries that ARE STILL REGARDED as countried should be listed under their sovereign nations. England, N.I., Scotland and Wales are at this specific moment in time four INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES under one SOVEREIGN COUNTRY. Therefore I feel it is necessary to list these countries under the UK header. Once again, they are not states, territories, regions etc they are RECOGNISED COUNTRIES. And without their inclusion under the UK header I feel that this List Of Sovereign Countries lacks relevant information and is bias and misleading.Craigieboy2001 (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What is all this nonsense about floodgates? These are explanatory notes we're talking about! They are here to give further information about the sovereign states on the list. They do not have inclusion criteria in and of themselves. We don't have to include anything in them if we don't want to. It's just that in some cases it helps the reader to have additional information about these states. When we point out that Netherlands has sovereignty over Aruba, we don't do it for the sake of listing Aruba. We do it so that people know that the sovereignty of the Netherlands extends to its dependencies.

There's no reason why we can't write these entries on a country-by-country basis. Frankly, it's absurd to think that we have to come up with some kind of filter that we can uniformly apply to every single subnational entity in the world. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

wow there has been alot of text here lol. I strongly oppose Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland being listed in line with other sovereign states. I do not oppose the 4 Countries of the United Kingdom being listed in the notes section of the United Kingdom, aslong as its clear they are part of the UK and the UK is the sovereign state. The only issue with including them is what other things for other countries must be included. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree that these shouldn't be here particularly. Perhaps there should be a statement on the talk page clarifying, or developing a consensus on, what is appropriate and not for the notes section. In relation to this article, however, the constituent countries of the UK are of no particularly notable status. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan

Kurdistan is the only autonomous region with full soveriengty over its area. In fact, it meets all the criteria for the Montevideo Convention including having dipomatic relations with other countries without going through Baghdad. I don't think any other autonomous region has full soverientiy over its area. If you can explain to me any others that do, please do. If this is a list of soverign states and not independent states shouldn't they at least be included in the noteworthy entities? CK6569 (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Until this is resolved here on the Talk Page, your entry has been reverted. If you continue to add the information in the article without coming to an agreement here on the Talk page, you will be guilty of edit warring. I'm not convinced by your reasoning why you want a separate entry for Kurdistan. Others are also not convinced. (Taivo (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

Iraqi Kurdistan is already mentioned on the list under the Iraq entry. It doesn't need to be mentioned in another secction. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you arguing the sovereignty of Kurdistan or are you arguing if and where it should be mentioned in the article? It is mentioned in the Iraq section but there is no reference to its sovereignty granted in 2005. If all we are talking about is whether or not it belongs at the bottom or in the Iraqi section, then I have no issue with a little more elaboration in the Iraq section. CK6569 (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Iraqi Kurdistan is not the only entity to meet Montevideo but to fail on our "claim to be sovereign and independent" criterion. Canadian Provinces, for example, have the power to conduct their own foreign affairs alongside the Canadian government (the French consulate in Quebec City is accredited to the Quebec government, not to the Canadian government). They don't all exercise that right, but they do have it. There are enough such entities that I do not see much need to list them. Pfainuk talk 21:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The term 'sovereign' can have slightly different meanings, for this article we do mean sovereign=independent, and Kurdistan is not independent. For your information, I believe many Russian Republics (like Tatarstan) for example are also officially 'sovereign'. sephia karta | di mi 22:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If we are going by the definition that sovereign=independent then I will agree that Kurdistan will not be on the list. CK6569 (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If we are only including those states that have declared indepedence, then shouldn't we remove Taiwan since it has not actually declared itself indepedent from the PRC and the PRC still sees it as a province CK6569 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't require that a state declare itself independent since that rather falls down in several cases which obviously belong - particularly in Western Europe and East Asia - but haven't ever formally declared independence.

You are, I believe, confusing Taiwan with the Republic of China. I explained it in detail on another page (see this section, specifically my long message of 18:09 UTC on 22 May 2009), but in brief, the ROC position is that they are and always (since 1912) have been the sole legitimate government of all of China. Declaring independence would imply that there was some other state to declare independence from, something that they do not formally accept. How the PRC sees it is not really relevant (except inasmuch as it affects how others see it and thus which of the two parts of the list it belongs on) - it's how the ROC sees itself that is important. Pfainuk talk 21:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

US States are formally sovereign as well. Pfainuk talk 22:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

And Native American tribes are legally "sovereign", too. (Taivo (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

But the US States and the Russian Republics still answer to USA and Russia ultimately. The KRG is a separate entity that does not answer to The Iraqi Government CK6569 (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, in some areas it does answer to the Iraqi government. (Otherwise it would be independent.) sephia karta | di mi 00:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as it answers to the Iraqi government in any respect, it's not a sovereign state as defined in this article. (Taivo (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC))

De facto and de jure

De facto sovereignty means that a state exercises its own independence by several factors already discussed elsewhere. All states on this list in both sections are de facto sovereign--they exercise their independence whether internationally recognized or not and whether granted by the former sovereign power or not. De jure, however, is different. De jure means that their sovereignty has been legally granted by the former sovereign power or by treaty, etc.--there is some legal document (or equivalent) that grants them independence. Only the states in the top part of this list are de jure sovereign. A state that is de jure sovereign, but not de facto sovereign is a region that has been granted legal sovereignty by some sovereign power, but that doesn't exercise its sovereignty--that is, it is formally independent, but doesn't act like it. There is no such region in the world as far as I know. Certainly all the states listed here exercise their sovereignty to the best of their ability, whether de jure sovereign or not. I have thus deleted the "or de jure" from the introductory section as this is meaningless in this context. (Taivo (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

I beg to differ. Whether a state is de facto sovereign is as you rightly point out an empirical question, and not really controversial. Whether a state is de jure sovereign is a political opinion. If you recognise the country, you think it is de jure sovereign, if you don't recognise it you think it isn't. You say that there needs to be some legal document that legitimises the independence of the state in question, but with all these states, legal cases can be and are made both against and for independence, and there is no objective universally accepted way of evaluating them.

However, I agree with you that the phrase perhaps de jure there didn't make sense. sephia karta | di mi 20:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, no matter how you define de jure, it's only de facto that matters. My point, which I think you understand quite clearly and seem to agree with, is that there is no such thing as a sovereign state that is de jure without also being de facto. (Taivo (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

I indeed agree with your edit. I think that Palestine is a state which is de facto not sovereign, but is nevertheless by some states considered to be de jure independent. Similarly, I think the Baltic states were considered to be de jure independent by some western states during the cold war, even though they were not de facto. sephia karta | di mi 22:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

We can argue on the technicalities, but I think we'd all agree that there is no entity that belongs on this list that is not a de facto sovereign state. If (for example) Tibet's government-in-exile is recognised as de jure sovereign by some state or other, it does not belong because it does not meet the requirement that it de facto hold territory. Beyond the separation between states that are generally recognised and those that are not, there's no need to go into de facto vs. de jure. Pfainuk talk 22:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree.sephia karta | di mi 22:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Me, too. Palestine right now is a special case, being only "mostly" de facto sovereign, but its strong de jure status gives it a place on this list. (Taivo (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

Whilst I agree in the change made to the page - none of the entities on the bottom list are de jure and not de facto - it should be pointed out that some scholars would argue that certain sovereign entities on the first half of the list are de jure sovereign but not de facto, most notably Somalia. I think the Somali example indicates that in such a case it would be very difficulty to decide when a de jure sovereign stops having de facto sovereignty. Oh, and isn't the Sovereign Military Order of Malta a de jure but not de facto sovereign? Pretty Green (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Italy

where is italy??--Severino (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. In some idiot's zeal to make sure that Palestine wasn't associated with Israel (or vice versa--it's hard to tell), they had inadvertently moved Italy, Jamaica, and Japan to a footnote. (Taivo (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC))

Somaliland

There is currently a huge debate on whether or not Somaliland meets the Montevideo Convention here —Preceding unsigned comment added by CK6569 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Palestine

This is treated the same as a number of entities that are similar to each other, but it isn't similar to them. Maybe it would be more logical to list it separately. There are 2 points that occur to me.

1. I've heard a number of news reports about the possibility that Palestine might proclaim itself a state. It seems to me this rather implies it hasn't done so yet. Is this true of any of the other entities listed in this section?
2. As this is a section about de facto states, why is there only 1 entry for Palestine? De facto it's clearly 2 states, with distinct governments & even non-contiguous territories. Of course both governments claim that they are the legitimate government of the whole territory, but that's true of China as well, which doesn't stop the article treating it as 2 states.

Peter jackson (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Palestine is a very awkward case. The State of Palestine was declared by the PLO (considered elsewhere to be the sole legitimate voice of the Palestinian people) in 1988 as a government-in-exile. Following the Oslo Accords, the PLO was given control of parts of the West Bank, and the Palestinian National Authority was set up.

As of now, the State of Palestine recognised by a hundred-odd states throughout the world as an independent sovereign state. Further, according to an Israeli court judgement, the Palestinian National Authority meets the legal criteria for sovereign status. However, it is not clear to me that the PNA (which holds de facto control on the ground) and PLO (which claims sovereignty and maintains recognition) can be regarded as one and the same. A good analogy may be the Vatican City and Holy See: the former holds the territory, the latter conducts relations.

On Gaza, I do see your point - it is a complicating factor in the above. But I think there is a distinction between this case and China, in that both Hamas and Fatah consider themselves rival governments of the Palestinian National Authority (under the same basic constitution and suchlike) whereas China and Taiwan consider themselves rival governments of China in general (under different constitutions and so on).

As a practical matter, I think it best to leave the State of Palestine where it is. I think we risk being seen as POV if we leave Palestine out, but I'm not convinced that Gaza and the West Bank are sufficiently separate to included separately. I can see the awkwardness, but I think the current solution is best from a practical perspective. Pfainuk talk 17:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The current situation with two groups claiming constitutional authority is not too unlike the situation of a contested election or coup d'etat where the ousted president/general still claims authority and has followers. Such a thing happened in one of the Latin American countries recently. (Taivo (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

Really good question! And I must concur with Pfainuk, but think of it more like two political parties working within the same framework of a government, and both believing they are the legitimate government(not necessarily rival govs). If this changes in time, however, this list will change then too. Outback the koala (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not like those situations at all. What we're talking about is not just rival claims to legitimate authority. There are plenty of those about, such as pretenders to thrones. The difference here is that each rival claimant actually controls part of the territory, as with China, and each government claims to be the legitimate government of the whole territory, as with China, and there isn't (much of) an actual war between them, as with China.

Another category to compare with is that large areas of some countries, such as Somalia, are actually under the control of somebody other than the "government". These are also de facto sovereign entities. Peter jackson (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the comparison with China, but there is a distinction. Hamas and Fatah both claim to be the legal authorities specifically of the Palestinian National Authority. It is the PNA, not Fatah or Hamas, that we're using as the government of Palestine here. This adds a new dimension of commonality that simply doesn't exist in China's case - there is simply no equivalent to the PNA in China's case.

The comparison with the unrecognised states is difficult - and Somalia is the most apt example to demonstrate this. Somaliland, unlike Gaza or the West Bank, has declared itself independent, so it's not a good comparison. But Puntland and Galmudug have not declared independence: they de facto control their claimed territory in the same way that Hamas and Fatah do, but do not consider themselves independent of Somalia, just as neither side considers the West Bank or Gaza to be independent of Palestine. For this reason, they are not included on this list except as part of Somalia. Pfainuk talk 11:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So let's see whether I've got this right. The criterion for whether a territory is counted as 1 country or 2 is not whether its rival governments claim it to be 1 country or 2 but whether they claim to be 1 government or 2. Yes? Peter jackson (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Peter, could you clarify what you just said, I didn't understand that at all. Outback the koala (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Both governments of China claim that China is 1 country
2. Both Palestinian governments claim that Palestine is 1 country
3. The 2 Palestinian governments claim to be 1 government
4. The 2 Chinese governments make no such claim
5. How is this a basis for saying that China is 2 countries, but Palestine is 1 country?

Peter jackson (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

But you forgot that the international community recognizes two Chinas de facto and that the two governments of China have been de facto separate for over 60 years. Today, the international community does not de facto recognize two different Palestines--they are still working under the one-Palestine concept and no one talks about "two Palestines" like they talk about "two Chinas". If the two Palestines continue to act separately and the international community begins to treat them like separate entities as they have treated the two Chinas for decades, then you will have a point and it will be a natural progression of this list to include a second Palestine. When Palestine wants to send two separate Olympics teams, have two separate U.N. delegations, make separate applications for aid to relief organizations, etc., then it will be acting like two countries de facto. But for now, that is not the state of affairs. And, I don't personally think it's likely that the two parts of Palestine will go their separate ways, although the physical separation makes it possible. Many countries go through contested elections (which this is just a variant of) where both parties claim victory (Ukraine's Orange Revolution, the 2000 U.S. election, etc.). But we don't list two countries during those brief periods. The problems in Palestine's government are along that line, but simply an extreme case. It will get resolved. (Taivo (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

Most of that sounds reasonable.

It's not a question of disputed elections. Rather, 1 part of the country is run by the undisputed President, the other by the undisputed majority in the Parliament.

For the record, a reliable source that counts Gaza & West Bank as 2 countries: World Christian Encyclopedia, 2nd ed, Oxford University Press, 2001, volume 1. Peter jackson (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Landless nations

I'm thinking of starting a list of landless nations, like the Jews (before Israel) or the Gypsies (Roma)? Where would I put that? I thought List of nations would be the place, but that's not what that page is about. 99.226.236.12 (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a difficult one because of the differing meanings of the word "nation". In the sense of the United Nations, a "nation" is clearly a sovereign state. Any list that appears to be a definitive list "of nations" would likely have to allow for that interpretation - and couldn't possibly be limited to only those groups that do not have a sovereign state of their own.

The other problem this gives is your inclusion criteria. How exactly do you define a "landless nation"? Would, for example, the Scots or the English count? Bear in mind that we have a list of ethnic groups that your list would have to be distinct from. Pfainuk talk 18:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Specifically in the case of Roma, The Romani voice in world politics: the United Nations and non-state actors is a good source for theoretical foundation for concept. RashersTierney (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Inasmuch as we talk about a "definite territory over which a nation exercise continuous and exclusive soverignity", we are not talking about simple land, but instead we are referring to a proper state. So I think a more proper concept for what you're thinking of, would probably be stateless nations --IANVS (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"In the sense of the United Nations, a "nation" is clearly a sovereign state." Not strictly correct. 4 founding members of the UN were not at the time sovereign states: Byelorussia, India, Philippines & Ukraine. Peter jackson (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

True - but even so, those were organised political entities - as opposed to the other sense of the word "nation" which describes something closer to an ethnic group or tribe (such as the Roma that the OP mentioned). Pfainuk talk 18:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the key phrase here is "organised political entities". But even then it's a slippery slope. Native American tribes in the U.S. and Canada are "organised political entities" that are non-sovereign nations. (Taivo (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

Clearly, it's up to the UN to decide exactly what they mean by "Nations", but I think it's clear that in general it's taken to mean sovereign states as opposed to nations in the sense of the Native American tribes in North America (or of peoples such as the Roma). There are some exceptions to the sovereign-states-only rule, but not many. India and the Philippines quickly became independent (something that was already known when the UN Charter was signed in 1945), and the Ukraine and Belarus were there because the USSR was worried about the US and its allies being at a numerical advantage in the General Assembly.

But I think this issue demonstrates the problem with a list that purports to be a definitive "list of nations" - there are too many different individual interpretations of the word "nation" for such a list to be viable long-term. Pfainuk talk 21:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Swains Island dispute

Swains Island, in American Samoa, is claimed by Tokelau's government. As Tokelau is a dependency of New Zealand, which recognizes American sovereignty over Swains, is this dispute worth mentioning on this page? Fishal (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been included in the entry. Outback the koala (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Tokelau waived any claim to Swains Island in a treaty signed in 1980 and ratified in 1983. I am travelling this week and am without access to my reference books, but will double-check and provide a reference when I get home. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Its constitution claims Swains in its preamble (http://www.tokelau.org.nz/), so I believe the Tokelauan government still claims it. But since New Zealand still handles all of Tokelau's foreign relations, Tokelau has no way to press the claim. Had it gone forward with self-government and free association, I'm not sure what would have happened. Fishal (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

non-self-governing - to add to "excluded" list

Also, I think that we should add the UN recognized non-self governing territories eighter to the Antarctida/EU/SMOM list (as "noteworthy entities that do not satisfy all the qualifications ...") or to a separate section "non-self governing" (in addition to "normal states", "other states"). Alinor (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The list of UN Non-Self-Governing territories is essentially arbitrarily defined, based largely on political considerations that should not concern us. For example, in practice, the status of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man is equivalent to that of the British Overseas Territories. The theoretical status is completely different - the Channel Islands and Isle of Man being more, not less, sovereign in theory than the BOTs. But we'd include the BOTs and not the Channel Islands and Isle of Man.

The UN is a political body with political opinions and political aims. It should not be treated as in any way inherently neutral - any more than we would treat the US government as inherently neutral. Pfainuk talk 09:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have some additional references on this which I can provide when I get home from a trip I'm on. If I haven't been back to this page 10 days from now, someone please poke me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the list may have flaws. But this is the only list of such type that we have - inclusion/exclusion in/from it is made in a structured process by a special UN body, so it seems notable enough to be added to the "excluded from the list above" section as "non-self governing territories that are under the sovereignity of states from the above lists". Alinor (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing Non-Self-Governing Territories with non-self-governing territories. The fact that a territory is a UN Non-Self-Governing territory does not imply that it is a territory that does not govern itself. Inclusion and exclusion is not really a structured process, based as it is almost entirely on the inconsistent whim of the C24 and UN General Assembly. I see little benefit in including such a list, compiled as it was by a political organisation for a political aim - particularly one so arbitrary as the UN's list of Non-Self-Governing-Territories. I don't mind mentioning dependent territories in general, but I do object to bringing the UN list into it.

(In fact, I must admit I see little reason to have a list of excluded entities at all, since it's an apparently limitless list of entities that don't belong on the list - but there we are). Pfainuk talk 18:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's mention the dependent territories in general then (as we have uncontacted peoples and federal subjects)? Alinor (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. Pfainuk talk 07:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

countries to add to the list (Niue, Cook Islands)

Currently, in the main list there are the UN members and the Vatican City. I think that we should two more: Niue, Cook Islands. They are classified by the UN as "non-member states" (link here) - these are Associated states. But just like Palau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia between signing of the CFA and geting UN membership (1986-1991 for Marshall/Micronesia) they are independent non-members of the UN (also like San Marino, Liechtenstein, Monaco, etc. small states that didn't have UN membership for long times despite their independence - in all such cases there are agreements with "big" neighbooring states for assistance in various matters). They have agreements with New Zealand for defense and other things, but on the onther hand they have independent relations with other states. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Alinor (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If this were a list of countries, maybe. But the title of "sovereign states" is definitive and leaves no room for these kinds of things. The territories you mention are all under the sovereignty of a state already mentioned here. Niue and the Cook Islands lie within the dominion of the Queen of New Zealand; they share the same head of state, so they are not states that are sovereign. Night w (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Night w. This is similar to the divisions of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. I would say no dice as well. Outback the koala (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Actualy this is not so. As the Commonwealth realm shares a head of state (Queen of the UK) - in the same whay NZ(+Tokelau+Ross), Cook, Niue share the Queen of NZ in the Realm of New Zealand. But we have in the main list all Commonwealth realm states, regardless of their shared queen. As I said (see links above) - the UN considers Niue and Cook a separate countries from the NZ. They conduct diplomatic relations with other states, etc. They are fully sovereign and independent. Of course they are associated (see link above) with NZ - in the same way Micronesia is associated with the USA. And we have Micronesia in the main list. Actualy the main difference between Micronesia and Cook Islands is that Micronesia is a UN member and Cook Islands - is not. They can became anytime they wish - there is no requirement for NZ consent, etc. - in contrast to Tokelau (a non-self governing - see link below). Even the UN treats them as state - a non-member state (currently UN membership is almost universal, but this was not aways the case). Alinor (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• The Commonwealth realms do not share a single head of state. The head of state of Australia is the Queen of Australia; the head of state of Canada is the Queen of Canada; the head of state of the United Kingdom is the Queen of the United Kingdom. They're all separate offices, they just happen to be held by the same person. The Queen of New Zealand is only head of state in New Zealand, the Cook Islands and Niue—that's her sovereign domain.
• What the UN considers a separate "country" is not relevant here. This is a list of sovereign states. Polities that are subject to the sovereignty of another polity—whether in practice, or just constitutionally—are not independently sovereign. That is why Greenland, and other countries under Denmark, the Netherlands or France are absent from the list.
• Plently of non-sovereign administrations conduct independent foreign policies—e.g. Nakhchivan, Greenland, Aruba, Bermuda.
• The relationship between New Zealand and its associates is different to the U.S. Compact of Free Association. The main difference is that the U.S. system guarantees its associates sovereignty—which means that the President of the United States is not the sovereign of Palau. But in Niue, the sovereign is the Queen of New Zealand.
• I'm dubious of your claim that both states have received an invitation from the U.N. to become members at any time of their choosing, without consent from New Zeland. I'm quite sure that U.N. membership requires sovereignty to be held a state's government before its admission, and in this case, that can only be granted by New Zeland. That the organisation itself would usurp New Zealand's sovereignty to grant membership to these states would be a violation of its own Charter—which guards the integrity of a state's sovereignty. They can't be admitted without sovereignty being granted from New Zealand, because that would give NZ a total of 3 seats (and thus 3 votes) in the assembly. Night w (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree on all your points there. Niue and the Cook Islands do not belong on this list, being part of the Realm of New Zealand.

You can add several Canadian provinces to your list of non-sovereign territories conducting foreign affairs. France and Quebec conduct formal relations (the French consulate in Quebec City is accredited to the Quebec government, not the Canadian government as is the normal practice), and Quebec and New Brunswick are members of the Francophonie. Alberta, I believe, also has a trade mission in Washington independent of the Canadian Embassy. Pfainuk talk 09:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to count independent trade missions as defining "sovereign" then you have to count about half of the US states in that list as well since many of them send their own trade missions to different countries to coax business into their states. Utah, for example, regularly sends trade reps to China. It's not a coincidence that Utah's last governor is now the ambassador to China. (Taivo (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC))

Indeed. This is a good reason why we demand a claim of sovereignty on this list. Pfainuk talk 15:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no other case of such appearently non-sovereign members to so many international organizations, conventions, etc. - on its own. The other similar cases have much narrower international representation (Hong Kong, Macau are the brightest examples - and they are clearly defined as sub-national entities of sovereign China). And also New Zealand's Tokelau is a good example of the opposite thing - non-sovereign dependency - in contrast to freely associated Niue. Also, "external relations" of states of US or provinces of Canada and similar are clearly dissimilar - they are of different nature and scope and also the laws/decision making in these territories is clearly under the "federal government" (for the policy areas in its scope).

I still see the US CFAs as the nearest example. About the head-of-state issue - the distiction about head-of-state/sovereignity is made, because NZ has no president, but monarch and there has to be a suitable arrangement (like the Commonwealth Realm). Yes, it could be Queen of Canda vs. Queen of Cook Islands, but it is Queen of New Zealand. Andorra has for head of state the French head of state and a Spanish bishop - how is this different from CI having for head of state the NZ head of state? Andorra was a "non-member state" of the UN until 1993.

Anyway, a quick look here shows that Cook Islands are fully separated for legislation purposes (eg. NZ Parliament has no power for entacting any laws there) and self-governing. They share the judical system (I am not a lawyer, but the arrangements seem similar to the early Commonwealth arrangements where some special UK judical bodies retained some links to Australia and Canada unil the later 20th century). External affairs and defence remain within NZ government, but the CI and NZ premiers can make other arrangements if they choose so. It seems that they choose external relations to be also transfered to CI governement (as they conduct them independently as seen in the links above; NZ ratifies/signs treaties in its own name or in its own+Tokelau - and CI/Niue ratify/sign at different times - sooner in some cases - eg. on their own). This seems like the current status of US CFA relationships (between the sovereign USA and sovereign CFA states), and much much similar to the US-CFA states relationship in the time between CFA enforcement and UN membership (eg. CI/Niue situation).

I don't agree that the fact that UN treats these two as "non-member states" is irrelevant. There are many many cases where the potential signatories to a treaty/convention/organization are listed as "UN member states: 192, UN observer states: Vatican, UN non-member states: CI/Niue". They don't list Alberta, Bermuda, Tokelau, Nakichevan, Greenland, etc. Just there three groups of states. That is why I think that we should list CI/Niue just as Andorra/Palau/Marshall/etc. would be listed if they didn't have UN membership yet. Alinor (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide an external source indicating that the UN treats CI/Niue as non-member states? (The reference on the article you linked to above is dead and a quick search didn't allow me to verify your claim). I agree with most of Night w's points. Alinor, I think you are confusing Independence/Autonomy and Sovereignty which are two distinct concepts. All the arguments you make show that clearly CI/Niue have significant autonomy from NZ. However, this does not imply that they have sovereignty over their territory. Diplomatic relations/membership of international orginanizations indicate autonomy, not sovereignty. As mentioned above, many subnational bodies are engaged in such activities. Additionally, the EU has extensive foreign relations with many counties and is a member of numerous interational organizations but the EU clearly has no sovereignty over its territory. And I'd strongly disagree with you that the shear "quantity" of one's foreign relations gives it a claim to sovereignty. This is somewhat akin to being the tallest midget in the room. The EU is probably involved in more international organizations than half the worlds countries, but it's still a midget. Conversly, even if Nauru had no foreign relations it would still be considered sovereign.

As mentioned above, in the US-CFA relationship no sovereignty was transfered to the US. In the other cases you mentioned above (Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Monaco etc.) these countries have long histories of exercising their own sovereignty and ensuring that the relationships they enter with neighbouring states explicitly specify that this sovereignty is not compromised. However, as per Realm of New Zealand, "The Realm of New Zealand is the entire area in which the Queen in right of New Zealand is head of state. The Realm comprises New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau..." So even if NZ has no legislative powers over CI/Niue, Elizabeth II is still sovereign over CI/Niue in her role as Queen of New Zealand. TDL (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The link from the UN article was pointing to a map, where CI/Niue were marked as "non-member states", differently from "member states" and "dependencies of member states". I will try to find the map somewhere else.

From what I see CI/Niue are independent and sovereign. They just share a head of state with another independent and sovereign state (NZ) - like other similar cases in the past and present. The difference here is that NZ head of state is monarch/"sovereign", thus it may seem at first that CI/Niue are not fully sovereign and independent of NZ. But as you say NZ has no legislative powers over CI/Niue, they only share the same monarch. See here: "as the territories are not sovereign entities, the Administrator and Governor are representatives of the New Zealand government and not the sovereign personally." - here Administrator (Tokelau) and Governor (Ross Dependency) are clearly part/appointed/subordinate with the NZ Government - in contrast to CI/Niue, where the Queen's Representative is fully seprated from NZ itself. Of course CI/Niue have arrangement for cooperation with NZ in some areas ("association" like CFA), but NZ-CI and NZ-Niue relations outside of the association scope are just like any two independent states. From the same article: "Though singular, linking the governments of New Zealand, Niue, and the Cook Islands, the Crown is thus "divided" into three legal jurisdictions." - eg. NZ is in no way "superior" to CI/Niue in terms of sovereignity ("with the headship of state being a part of all equally").

In the list for USA it is not stated that it "has responsibilities for Palau/etc", so I don't see why we have such thing for the NZ-CI/Niue relations. The head of state issue is a separate thing and as it seems - CI/Niue/NZ have "equal stakes" in this Crown (opposed to the crown dependencies of the UK, where the Isle of Man/Jersey/etc. are dependent on the Crown of the UK).

In summary, I propose to add, like the Vatican, CI/Niue with note (like Palau/etc.): "UN non-member state, in Free Association with NZ"Alinor (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So far, there is no clear consensus for adding these two. I still don't agree with your assessment of sovereignty, Alinor. If Pres. Obama visited Palau, he would be greeted by a separate head of state--the President of Palau. If he visited Niue, he would be greeted by Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand. A state without its own head of state is not sovereign. Andorra is a special case, but still very clearly defined--it's not either the President of France or the Bishop of Urgell, but both of them. Therefore it cannot be said that Andorra is a dependency of either France or Spain, but is different. Cook Islands and Niue are in "free association" with New Zealand. Just because CI and Niue have chosen to be tied to New Zealand doesn't make them sovereign. If they choose to disassociate from New Zealand in the future, then they can claim sovereignty. Just because they can peacefully leave the sovereign umbrella of New Zealand doesn't make them any more sovereign than a region which would have to fight its way to sovereignty. (Taivo (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

In the intro of the sovereignity article it is said "A sovereign is a supreme lawmaking authority." - in the cases that we discuss this function is vested in "the people"/their representatives in the Parliament, right? Why should we imply such a tight link between head of state and sovereignity? Andorra is sovereign country, not because both FR president and SP bishop are head of states. It could be fully sovereign and independent even if only the french president or the bishop were its head of state.

I would agree that CI/Niue probably don't qualify for this list but using heads of state as a justification is pretty absurd when we're talking about a country where the head of state is a powerless figurehead shared by over a dozen other countries. That's the kind of goalpost moving that is designed to exclude entities after the fact, rather then to set up a reasonable criteria for inclusion. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

See here about the Queen of New Zealand. This is crown of three countries: NZ, CI, Niue. It is NOT crown of NZ only with CI and Niue as dependencies of NZ. As you see in the article it is stated that if NZ becomes a republic the Queen of New Zealand (UK queen) could remain head of state for CI/Niue (as one of the options).

In the sovereignity sense NZ, CI and Niue are equal - so, if we apply the head-of-state logic we could say that the sovereign state is Niue with Elizabeth II as head of state and CI and NZ having as their head of state the Niue's Elizabeth II. Of course, beause of size/history/etc. the name of the queen includes the words "New Zealand", but this implies in no way some special attributes to New Zealand as territory/country/state/government - it remains equal to Cook Islands and Niue. The three are fully sovereign, each on its own, and they share the same crown/queen/monarch.

If Obama visits Niue it would be greeted by the head of state/monarch of Niue, that is titled "Queen of New Zealand", but not by the head of state/monarch of New Zealand.

I see that there is no consesus, but I try to explain what I found relevant to this list in the articles linked above. Alinor (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Many nonsoveregin entities independently appoint representatives to the Queen. (See Lieutenant Governor (Canada)). The situation in NZ seems very similar to Denmark and the Netherlands. The Denmark is in no way superior to Greenland within the Kingdom of Denmark. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Kingdom of Denmark is the sole sovereign entity. Greenland and Denmark proper are equal members of the kingdom, but the Monarchy of Denmark is sovereign over the whole territory. From that article: "The Kingdom of Denmark although commonly known simply as 'Denmark' actually consists of three independent countries: Denmark in northern Europe, the Faroe Islands in the North Atlantic, and Greenland in North America." This is the exact same argument you are making for CI/Niue. But the Queen of NZ is actually the Queen of the entire Realm of NZ as a single entity. Technically, I think we should list Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of The Netherlands, Realm of New Zealand, however because each of these entities has a dominant member, common practice is to just list the dominant state.

I agree with the opinion that a common head of state should not determine sovereignty. However, in this case I think it is important since the Queen of NZ is the head of state in CI/Niue by virtue of her being the head of state of NZ. So whomever NZ chooses as their head of state is automatically the head of state of CI/Niue, without any local input. To me that indicates that ultimate sovereingty rests with NZ. Just because CI/Niue have the ability to opt out of the crown, doesn't change their current status. TDL (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The actual inclusion criterion that's the issue here - that people seem to have missed - is that the Cook Islands and Niue consider themselves to be independent sovereign states. When we've looked before, we've found a Cook Islands government source that says no, and no later source to dispute it. It should all be in the archives somewhere. If there's a Cook Islands source, and a Niue source, that actually claims independent sovereign status, then my objection would be removed. Pfainuk talk 18:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm running out of ways to explain this: One of the key principles in Westphalian sovereignty, which is the contemporary system of statehood in use today, is that a state's sovereignty is constitutionally invested in a head of state, who is the embodiment of that state's sovereignty—that's why they're called the sovereign. You can't distinguish the sovereign from sovereignty; the two are inseparable.

Once again, you're drawing analogies from scenarios that you don't seem to be familiar with. The heads of state of Andorra are not the President of France and the Bishop of Sea d'Urgell, the Co-Princes of Andorra are. They're separate titles, with separate offices—they just happen to be held ex officio by the holders of other titles. Just because two separate offices are constitutionally always fulfilled by the same person, it doesn't therefore combine the two domains into one.

With what you're saying about equality between the three—I probably agree. I've always held that the Kingdom of Denmark is a sovereign state, and Denmark just one constituent part, much like the United Kingdom and its constituents. It might be the same in this case, but the three (New Zealand, Niue, the Cook Islands) still wouldn't be listed separately, because they're all part of the same sovereign state; and they'd still all be listed under the name "New Zealand", because that's what the name of the state is. At the moment, you're making up your own definition of what a sovereign state is, by associating it with independence—or whatever else—but the concept is already defined through common practice and customary international law.

Lastly, if we apply the two theories of statehood to Niue and the Cook Islands, they fail both automatically: no state recognises them as sovereign states—not that there's ever been a chance to, because neither of the two have declared themselves as sovereign states.

I don't have any problem with elaborating on the mention of federated states (currently at the bottom of the Other states section) to include associated states—in general (i.e., no examples). Night w (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In 1946, Canada's head of state was the "King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas" and India's head of state was the "Emperor of India". If we were applying this head of state standard we would have to conclude that India was a sovereign state in 1946 and that Canada was not. But of course that's absurd, it was the other way around.

Pfainuk's pretty much said all that needs to be said on the matter. There's no sovereignty claim from CI or Niue, so they don't belong on the list. No need to make up new inclusion criteria. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Conversely, if we applied your "claim of sovereignty" criteria we would be forced to include the Principality of Sealand which is equally (if not more) absurd. Clearly the inclusion criteria is more complicated than you make it out. A claim to sovereignty is a necessary, but not sufficient criteria for sovereignty. TDL (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly it is not sufficient in and of itself - but of the criteria listed in the article, it's the only one that's missing in the case of Niue and the Cook Islands. The reason we have these criteria listed in the article is precisely so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel every time one of these apparently marginal cases comes up. Pfainuk talk 19:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said it was sufficient and I don't think anyone would claim that it was. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Orange, you're referring to titles and styles—I'm talking about the office of head of state / sovereign. Canada had a separate head of state as soon as the passing of Statute of Westminster. The title was changed later, because of disagreements, but it's still Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories; but that's not relevant. We're not making up new "inclusion criteria"; Alinor is challenging the definition of sovereignty, and I'm defending it. Night w (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not really correct. The Statute of Westminster gave Canada legislative independence. It didn't say anything about the head of state. But even if we were to accept that logic then your argument still wouldn't make sense since the Constitution of the Cook Islands specifically states that Queen Elizabeth II is the "Head of State of the Cook Islands" [3]. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So based on your position that the only criteria the CI are lacking is a claim of independence, suppose the CI were to claim independence tomorrow, but remain within the Realm of NZ, you would include them in the list Pfainuk? I guess my position would be that they would still fall short as "supreme, independent authority over a territory", and thus sovereignty, would still rest with the Queen of NZ. And the constitution of CI doesn't state that QEII is the head of state. It states that "Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand shall be the Head of State of the Cook Islands". These are different in my opinion (as was argued above about Andorra's situation). TDL (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How can you read a sentence saying someone shall be the head of state of the cook islands and not think that that person is the head of state of the cook islands? Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If you re-read my post you will notice that I never stated that I thought that QEII isn't the head of state of CI. My point was that the constitution doesn't state that someone is the head of state, it states that something is the head of state. The constitution delegates the role of head of state to the head of state of New Zealand. So QEII is only the head of state via her role as the Queen of NZ. If NZ decided to name a Kiwi as their queen, CI's constitution would still name that Kiwi as their sovereign. This is different from Canada, where there are domestic laws governing the monarchy. Canadian law specifies the succession of the crown independently from the UK, so legally speaking it's just a coincidence that Canada and the UK have both decided to name the same person as their heads of state. The CI's constitution specifically requires that CI's head of state is by definition the head of state of NZ. This would be equivalent to Canada changing it's constitution to state that the President of the USA is their new head of state, while Canada's current situation is more akin to if Obama decided to run for prime minister of Canada. Both would result in Obama being the head of state of Canada, but in the former Canada wouldn't be sovereign in my opinion. Obviously, Andorra breaks this logic, but I think that this is more of an historical anomoly than a precident setting case. TDL (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place for philosophical discussions on the nature of sovereignty. The fact is, it doesn't matter how each of us would define sovereignty: we include an entity or not based on the criteria listed in the article. Does the Cook Islands government consider the Cook Islands to be an independent sovereign state? Does the Niuean government consider Niue to be an independent sovereign state? If not (as the evidence suggests), then they they don't go in, regardless of any other factors. If they do, and if they meet the other criteria given in the article (they do) then they go in. Simple as that. Pfainuk talk 23:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I will try to apply the inclusion criteria: permanent population, defined territory, government - these are not disputed so far. This leaves the last one: capacity to enter into relations with the other states - see 1, 2, 3, 4. As you see, even the NZ-CI and NZ-Niue relations are state-to-state. Also their missions are emabssies/high commissions - not consulates or other lesser rank types. So, I think they are best described with their own entries CI/Niue: "UN non-member state, in Free Association with NZ". Alinor (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You've missed number five: "The list includes all states that which are often regarded as satisfying these criteria and claim to be sovereign and independent". I don't dispute any of the four, but I do dispute that the Cook Islands and Niue claim to be sovereign and independent. Pfainuk talk 07:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What kind of additional reference do we need to check if they "claim" to be independent and sovereign? I find these: 1(independence day), 2("This and other earlier agreements clearly reflected the fact that control over both external affairs and defence rests entirely with the Cook Islands government"). But both are "weak"/non direct. In any case, the situation with CI/Niue is very similar to the US CFA states situation between CFA enforcement and UN membership - so I suppose we won't find such "claim" until/if they apply for full UN membership. But I don't think that UN membership is requirement for a entity to be independent/sovereign - on the contrary, if independence/sovereignity is requirement for UN membership. Alinor (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your second link has a critical piece of info--residents of the Cook Islands retain their New Zealand citizenship. If they claim New Zealand citizenship, and (presumably) travel as citizens of New Zealand, they are not sovereign and are not claiming independence from New Zealand. (Taivo (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

What do I want? Something that demonstrates that the following is out of date:

The Cook Islands people, because of their many natural links with New Zealand, have determined to exercise their right of self-government or self-rule or independence -- call it what you will -- but not at this time as a separate, sovereign State.

"They have worked out a form of full self-government in free association with New Zealand, but -- and here is the special feature -- they may at any time in future, if they so desire, move into full independence, or any other status that may become practicable, by a unilateral act, that is, one which New Zealand has denied itself power to countermand. The right is spelled out in the provisions of article 41 of the Constitution...

"This new status is not sovereign independence in the juridical sense, for the Cook Islanders wish to remain New Zealand citizens and in the meantime they wish New Zealand to discharge the responsibilities in the field of external affairs and defence in consultation with them; but it means that the Cook Islanders have a continuing right to self-determination. Henceforth the legal links between the Cook Islands and New Zealand rests on consent; this is what we understand by 'free association' ".

This was a statement made to the UN by Cook Islands representatives in 1965, when the free association status was first created. It clearly states that the Cook Islands is not a separate sovereign state from New Zealand, and relates (so far as we can tell) to the status held by the Cook Islands today. Pfainuk talk 18:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The quote from the second link that I provided shows that some time AFTER the 1965 Act there were additional steps taken, so that external affairs and defense now rest entierly in CI hands (external affairs on their own, defense trough inter-state cooperation agreement with NZ). Apperantly the only thing that is left is the NZ citizenship. There are many cases of dual-citizenship, but I can't point to example where all citizens of a state have both their own+foreign citizenship. Anyway, this lack of example does not prove/disprove wheter CI/Niue "claim" independence/sovereignity. I look at the citizenship thing more as a practical arrangement between two states (albeit unusual) and vest more importance in the Queen of NZ "equal share" for NZ/CI/Niue - as far as sovereignity is concerned. Anyway,it would be nice if we had good source confirming/disproving this, because currently I see both my position and your position as unproven. Maybe some of the announcements of establishing diplomatic relations between CI/Niue and other states would have references to "NZ territory of ..." or "the sovereign ..."? Alinor (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This says: "between the two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, ...". Alinor (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

These two have always been slightly awkward with respect to this list. I agree that neither position is particularly convincingly proven - but for the purposes of this list, I have rather felt that a clear and fairly unambiguous statement whereby the Cook Islands "move into full independence" would suffice. At the same time, I recognise that in the Commonwealth tradition several independent and sovereign states have previously arisen without any such statement but rather by an evolutionary process - New Zealand itself being prime example.

One thing we could do is send them an e-mail, ask them and (with their consent) publish the results. I'm not sure to what extent that would constitute original research, but would suggest that it is likely to be the best we're going to get. Pfainuk talk 11:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a reply by CI/Niue governments as OR (of course link to their websites would be much better) and I agree that it would be very helpful in this case. So, if you know where to ask - please, do so. Alinor (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Any reply we get would likely be biased. Like the UN, they are a political body with political motivites. We need a neutral source from a third party. Outback the koala (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I think the question we're trying to figure out here is whether or not they regard themselves as sovereign states, so in that sense their "bias" is exactly what we need. I think it's a good idea to contact them, if we can figure out how. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we don't know - their position. And in the meantime please look at the judical affairs - CI/Niue apply UK Privy council where NZ does not. Another example in support of the CI/Niue independence of NZ theory, but anyway the issue is still up - until we have the replies/other source. Alinor (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up. I was a little confused. :P Outback the koala (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, what a mess. Here it goes again:

Statehood is not only achieved through (declared) full political independence. You can be a state under international law if you are a protectorate or a protected state, a confederated state or an associated state. You can also be a subject of international law even if you have arrangements with other countries that limit your sovereignty in some way (such as Liechtenstein has with Switzerland today, and Monaco had with France until very recently). This is the case for Micronesia, Palau, Marshall Islands, Cook Islands and Niue. This is why they all should be listed on this page. Ladril (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

San Marino

Okay either this page or the San Marino page is wrong. Is there a "Most Serene" in there or not? Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The CIA Fact Book lists the "conventional long form" as simply "Republic of San Marino". Wikipedia can't serve as a source for itself, so a reliable source stating otherwise would be necessary. I can't tell you which is right or not, I can only tell you what the CIA Fact Book lists as the long form. (Taivo (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

I've always thought that San Marino is the Most Serene Republic in long form. Check its WP page for starters. Outback the koala (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we all know that we can't cite other WP pages as reliable sources. All I know is what the CIA says. Do you have any reliable sources for "Most Serene"? (Taivo (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC))

I'm not sure that you should be relying on the "CIA World Factbook" for a reference—a primary source (i.e. a domestic government source) would be the most appropriate. Searching through some of them on Google: with and without the "Serenissima" prefix both seem pretty common. In any case, the name on this list should plainly reflect the name on the subject's main page. If you want to dispute the name, you should do it on the relevant page, not here. Editors on that page will also most likely know more about the subject, and be able to provide a better insight. Night w (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary sources actually. But this list is specifically based on CIA Factbook and German Foreign Ministry document, both of which list "Republic of San Marino" (see footnote 1). The list isn't purported to be a summary of Wikipedia, but an article based on its own secondary sources. Beware of other stuff. (Taivo (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC))

Well thats absolutely bullshit now isn't it. I strongly agree with Night w. We base our supposedly independent, encyclopedic list on two lists from two specific governments. A list provided by the Russian government or the Venezuelan government or the Transnistrian government or the New Zealand government etc... would likely provide a very different list. This really is a shock to me, WP:NPOV had been ignored when creating this article I guess, but now we should do away with that and base the page on independent sources. CIA factbook is great, when there isn't a dispute, that is, regarding which the US has a position, because their 'facts' will represent it differently. I like to hear what others think before I remove them as general sources for the list as a whole. Outback the koala (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that we shouldn't rely exclusivly on an inherently political source such as the CIA factbook. However, I don't see a problem with keeping it as a "gerneal source". I've always thought that the official name of San Marino included the "Most Serene", and a quick google found numerous sources on official government sites which use this name ([4], [5], see [6] for more). Every piece of legislation I've found seems to include the term at the start. However, I haven't found anything which explicitly stated what the official name is. However, I think the links I provided above are certainly sufficient for including this name in the article. TDL (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Two widely available lists from two different governments were used in the making of this list. There's no problem looking at another list. I don't really care, but what should not be done is using Wikipedia as a source for itself. If there are sources for "Most Serene", then fine. If New Zealand's foreign ministry has a list, then compare it to this list and list it as a source. But to claim that this list isn't NPOV just because it was written using a source that someone seems to object to, but is widely considered to be reliable, is baloney. (Taivo (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

Those legislation links are interesting since they seem to imply that BOTH names are in official use, often in the same document. I wonder if this is like Argentina's "Argentine Republic"/"Argentine Nation" thing. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a legal document: http://www.consigliograndeegenerale.sm/upload/leggi_6894.pdf

The official name includes "Serenissima". Shorthand is just that and is even used in official communications. Don't waste so much time on this. Ladril (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to be reading Wikipedia essays, and I'm well aware that secondary sources are preferred in most cases. But in this particular case—where sources are clearly conflicting—a primary source would be the highest authority on the subject (its own name no less). And while "reliable" is certainly never a word I've associated with the CIA, that's not why it's come into question as a source. Outback and Dan brought up WP:NPOV because both sources used are government sources (not because "somebody seems to object"), therefore representing the politics and opinions of two governments, and displaying them as raw data across the board. I don't have a problem with having them as a general reference for official names—where there's not much controversy—but in cases where there is a dispute on the name, rigidly sticking to whatever the U.S. and German governments use is not okay, because (as we've said) they're not neutral sources. Night w (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I do of course, however, agree that using other Wikipedia articles as references is absurd. But contradictions between them is something to bring forward for discussion because, as Orange stated: one of them must be wrong. Night w (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't know, maybe neither of them is wrong. Is it possible that both forms of the name are official? They both appear to be in official use. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ladril that the usage without "The Most Serene" is merely shorthand for the full name. After all, a brief look through the American constitution ([7]) reveals numerous references to the "United States" without "of America", yet we wouldn't claim that both are official. Also, I'm not convinced that the CIA Factbook shouldn't be considered a primary source for this article as well since, at least using some definitions, international recognition is vital for sovereignty. So in a sense, the CIA Factbook is reporting their own recognition of foreign countries, hardly a second-hand account. For example, the CIA lists the official name of Burma/Mynamar as Burma, which is clearly a political decision. TDL (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what night w siad about the sourcing, yes to using it in general, no to using it where theres conflict for the reason stated above. As far as the naming, I think we can say both names are used and that "The Most Serene" part is the long form, widely unused in everyday usage. Is anyone contesting it's inclusion; otherwise we should just put it in without and kind of reference. Outback the koala (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the long(est) form is not found in the two primary sources that this list is based on, then a reference to an official usage should be provided. I only objected when "Most Serene" was being added without any reference. (Taivo (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC))

On the other hand, I do not agree with adopting a policy of "primary sources" for this page, especially when such sources reflect the point of view of just one government. In my view, this has caused a lot of trouble for pages and lists like these in the past. And from what I've read here, I'm not alone. Ladril (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The UNGEGN [8] uses "Republic of San Marino" too, for what it's worth. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually this is a bit of a sidebar but what do people think about using this document as the main source for official names rather than the CIA and German documents? At least when it comes to UN member states, anyway. It basically has all the same information but it seems like it would be a bit more NPOV. Plus it would avoid the weirdness of having a source which says "Union of Burma" when the list says "Union of Myanmar" Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to use a single, neutral source. CIA FactBook would then be useful for the countries not included in the UN list. (Taivo (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC))

Sounds great! Can you also add a footnote about the secondary usage of "Serenissima", with that legislation document as a source? Night w (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It can be referenced, but the UN is not a neutral organization and thus it cannot be used as the only reference. I'm completely fine if Serenissima is listed as an alternate, more ceremonial usage. Ladril (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)