Talk:List of sovereign states

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of sovereign states article.
Article policies
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated NA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives
When editing the List of sovereign states in the sense of adding or removing an entry, please do:
  • make sure you correct thoroughly the arithmetic in the lead section, e.g. 192+3=195 to 193+1=194.


Contents

[edit] Clean up 2

This modification corrects:

  • arithmetic
  • what we say should be what we list, we should not say one thing and list another

It consists of the following 6 changes: One change that I consider obligatory:

  • The phrase "Seven additional entries are listed after the end of the list" was added, and these entries are mentioned by name. Although the number of entries in that additional list can be discussed and modified, if the additional list is present, its existence has to be mentioned. If anyone wants to remove this phrase, it goes hand in hand with removal of the list as well. (If you do, please make such a porposal - obviously it can be discussed, but beaware that's probable to generate heated difcussions.)

three minor changes:

  • "Kosovo (Serbia)" has been put into a separate sentence, since suport for such change was found in the previous discussion. I recall the argument: unlike other entries such as Puntland or Kurdistan, Kosovo has no breakaway government or authority. It is administered and controlled entirely by UN, not by a secessionist movement as in all the other.
  • Link to "Moldovan language" given, since the concept is disputable. Also corrected the name in Moldovan.
  • added "independentist-oriented local governments, or independentist movements that do not have a government with control over a defined territory" I will not seriously object if you erase this.

and tho changes that need firther discussion

  • "De facto independent states" renamed "Additional list". Please, propose and change to a better name if you know one.
Why is it better then the old version? why haven't you proposed it at the talk first (if I don't forget something, that is :)) Alæxis¿question? 20:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You mean renaming "De facto independent states" into "Additional list"? Just rename it back or to a better name. I just thought "Additional list" is as neutral as it can get. (The previous 194 entries are also de facto independent, so the title did not distingushed them from the smaller list). I admit, my last two changes were a rush. I was about to undo them. But then a user corrected about Western Sahara, and also replied me shortly on my talk page. So, I did not edit more, 'cause sure people would read this (talk page has been cleared of anything but this) and will correct right away if anything. And frankly, I am not that interested in the name of the smaller list.:Dc76 22:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll return the old name then... Actually de facto tends to be used as opposed to de jure (you wouldn't call something de facto if it's also de jure) so I think there wouldn't be any confusion. Alæxis¿question? 07:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Western Sahara is moved to the Additional list (this perhaps was better to discuss separately; I won't object to rv this thing if a discussion can be started afterwards)

Thanks for your attention. :Dc76 15:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Good job all the problems have to be solved step by step.--Tones benefit 17:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Should the sentence on the top of the page, "This is an alphabetical list of the sovereign states of the world, including both de jure and de facto independent states.", be changed as this page now has two lists and neither matches the criteria stated in the sentence? Should the second list be dropped as it is covered in List of unrecognized countries? (I do not like the second list as it will never be seen by most users as they do not scroll down to see it. Rather it should be one list with or without the de facto independent states) -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 00:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I did not notice the first sentence. Any ideas how to change it? The second list was already present in the article! I did not introduce it, I only mentioned it in the begining. I understand your observation, it is legitimate. But I personally would rather not rush with a solution that would be contested, so I don't know what to suggest yet. Well, the good part now is that people are aware of the problem (it is not hidden any longer), so hopefully a cool and wise mind will suggest something good. :Dc76 01:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge the lists or deleted the second list, then the sentence is easy to either not change or change by removing the de facto bit. This page had one list for a long time before it was mucked with by some people pushing a POV. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 12:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The additional list can not, imho, be merged with the main list, because the main list contains the mutually recognized, fully functioning and daily interacting states of the world, whose sovereigny and independence is insrined in the whole body of international law and international customary diplomatic practice. Such a state could not be created or cease to exist in a local event - it would be always a major story. On the other hand, if Sawahari Republic would be dissolved or South Ossetia rejoin Georgia, those would be news of local importance, like if Sealand would ceese. Nothing in the world will change if such an entity appears or disappears, it can not provoke war or setting of govrnments in exile, the rest of the world would simply observe, if notice at all. If on the other hand, Albania or Kenia or Burma or Kuweit, if annexed by someone, that is a different story. So, at least as I understand the things, the additional list contains entities of a totally diffenent nature than the main list.
But the list includes Republic of China which it not a recognized state. List all the unrecognized states or non of them. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 00:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that Republic of China (Taiwan) has to be in the list, b/c it is recognized by many states, and it was once recognized as the only legal China (until early 1970),etc. The problem with PRC and ROC is one country-two systmes formula, which is specific case, not simmilar to any other case. In the case of Hong Kong and Macao this system is employed by making the two SAR of PRC, so they are autonomous dependences without being sovereign states. In the case of ROC, there was no UK or Portugal as colonial power, ROC was the legal independent government of China. And it remains so: PRC is the legal government for the part of China that follows communsim, ROC is the legal government for the part of China that followes capitalism and democracy. So one country-two sovereign states. Again, this is a unique case. And it must be added, that because there is a huge territorial and population disparity between PRC and ROC, and because PRC is a nuclear power, only one of them can be allowed to represent China as a country in diplomatic relations. Hence you can have diplomatic relations only with PRC, but economic relations with both. You can visit Taiwan, and you can discuss anything, from economy to politics, but you can not call ROC the exponent of the whole people of China. On the contrary, you go to Beijing, criticize them as much as you can, but you have to recognize them as the representatives of China as a whole/country. In time this will be solved by democratising the mainland. Until then, we have 1 country - 2 states. (IMHO):Dc76 12:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
When you say There was no colonial power for the ROC, you miss the fact taht the ROC is pretty much limited to Taiwan these days. Both China and Japan were important colonial powers there. The "one-country two-systems" formulation by the PRC isn't relevant because it isn't accepted by the ROC. Readin (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I would support creating a separate article for the additional list (or merge it in a different article), if such an idea would find support in the talk page. :Dc76 12:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It already exists. It is List of unrecognized countries -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 00:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English vs local names

There are two problems with the "The names in English are the short official names (e.g. Afghanistan) followed by the (long) official name (e.g. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan)." The entries for Ivory Coast and Burma, either the names need changing or description needs changing to "used by the United Nations in their English publications". There is no way that Côte d'Ivoire is English and the Official British Government position is to use Burma until a internationally reconised democratically elected Burmese government asks to be known by a different name, which is the position taken by most of the British media.[1][2][3] Burma also seems to be the name used by the United States government.[4]--Philip Baird Shearer

Who defines what a countries name is in English. Certainly it is not you, the British Government, or the media. If Côte d'Ivoire wants to be called that, that is why the UN lists it as such, then we should honor their request. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 00:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
How about Ivory Coast/Côte d'Ivoire - Republic of Côte d'Ivoire ? :Dc76 01:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I would do something like Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) - Republic of Côte d'Ivoire. The same should be done for North/South Korea and the China. They look very wrong now as they are not quite alphabetical. See List of countries on how the Koreas and Chinas are done correctly and how Côte d'Ivoire is treated. But note that Timor-Leste is not done correctly on List of countries - I love the inconsistencies in one Wikipedia article much less the inconsistencies between articles. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 12:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is not me who defines the names of articles, that is done through common usage (See WP:NC). Do yo know how sill it sounds if you argue that the English speaking media, and the governments of English speaking countries do not define the name names of countries in English? But please note what I wrote "names need changing or description needs changing to "used by the United Nations in their English publications"." --Philip Baird Shearer 17:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Could one (or both) of you, please, take your time and go through the list in order to list here all instances with name problem, so we can address them consistently. I have the same feeling about inconsistences, but we have to treat them in a way to solve them, so when someone rv we can with good arguments explain why it shouldn't be rv, e.g. point to this discussion about inconsistency.:Dc76 12:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The states that have name issues are Côte d'Ivoire, Myanmar, and Timor-Leste. Also the two Chinas, the two Congos, and the two Koreas have a similar but different name issue. There is not much that can be done for them as someone will eventually change the back based on Conventional wisdom rather than by fact. Even if this page is correct the error will be on other pages. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 00:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it rather odd that people should see a distinction between "English" and "local names" in cases where there are virtually no distinction between the two (if such a distinction is even important in itself). Just how "English" is the word "Afghanistan", for instance? Is "Burma" more "English" than "Myanmar", when both are borrowed words? What we should be concentrating our focus on is the question of common usage versus official usage in English publications, and not over the "Englishness" of loanwords.--Huaiwei 18:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Loanwords change over time (i.e. Peking to Beijing and Calcutta to Kolkata) and the basis for names listed here should be based on what the place in question wants to be called. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 00:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
And I believe you will recognise that it is precisely one of the possible viewpoints I stated above. The other is common usage, which I actually tend not to favour, for if so, we will probably be perpertually the last major publication on the internet which keeps using old names until they fade into obscurity.--Huaiwei 14:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The ROC is a sovereign state

Corticopia has argued that the ROC does not claim independence, and so should not be on this list. In fact, the ROC does claim independence. It has claimed independence ever since it was a major government on the mainland. It never ceased to claim independence. It does not claim the independence of Taiwan from the rest of China, but that is an entirely different issue. Both the ROC and the PRC claim independence from other nations. Both the ROC and the PRC claim to be the rightful government of all of China. Both the ROC and the PRC have de facto control of territory. Both the ROC and the PRC make treaties with other sovereign nations. Both the ROC and the PRC are subjects of international law. Both the ROC and PRC are sovereign states. Lexicon (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Spot on. sephia karta 21:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry: I'm seeing spots. I see argumentation in support of this viewpoint, but little/no sourced matter to justify it. And 'the entirely different issue' of independence L. alludes to is part-and-parcel of the problem to begin with, so much so that the ROC is arguably limited in its capacity to enter into relations with other states and (per the constitutive theory of statehood, not invalid) is recognised as such by few. Even Western Sahara is recognised by more states, yet it is categorised as a de facto state only. The current ROC entry is far more impartial regarding this than previous (e.g., listing of various names regarding that entity). Taiwan/ROC is indisputably a country or nation. A state? Perhaps. A sovereign state? Perhaps not. Before anyone contemplates changes, please provide evidence we can verify (e.g., indicating 'Taiwan is a sovereign state'). Thanks. Corticopia 02:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Then we must abandon the list. The Republic of China is no different in principle than the People's Republic of China. They're both recognized by states, but not all states. The only difference is degree of recognition. I would not accept that the ROC has any less capacity than any other state to enter into relations with other states. It can enter into relations, which is what capacity means. Whether other states do enter into relations with it (either officially, as with several nations, or unofficially, as with many others), is, again, a different issue. But no, I don't have sourced matter that proves that the ROC is a sovereign state. But then, I don't have anything that proves that the PRC is, either. Lexicon (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you've nailed it on the head; also see below. 'In principle' is rather different than 'in fact', and the 'different issue' is in fact inextricably linked to the current one. Perhaps we should abandon the list: above all, it is not our place to make assertions that are rather contestable and partial to one viewpoint (as was previously the case). Turkey acknowledges the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (rather a result of its own actions). After all, it also has territory and a government. Do we include it? No. Some may assert that the ROC is a sovereign state (I acknowledge this perspective, most of all made by the Taiwanese president), but others definitely do not. [5] [6] [7] And perhaps the China Post put it best, which to me solidifies the reasoning for why it cannot be in the list above: "Taiwan is already a de facto sovereign state, but its status as a normal state has not been achieved yet." Corticopia 12:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
A state can only have the capacity to enter into relations with other states, if other states are willing to enter into relations with it. In the case of ROC there are no doubts about it [8]. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Au contraire: You are both commenting in absolutes, even when they do not exist. Many things a sovereign state must have, de jure and de facto; see above. A capacity to enter into relations with other states may be moot if it is not recognised: I have added a cited reference for this; also, [9] Even the legal basis for its participation may thus be at issue, thereby casting doubt on the other qualifications of statehood. PBS, the article you have provided (in one perspective, perhaps a realist one) demonstrates the opposite point you are trying to make: that Costa Rica is a state, and that it no longer acknowledges the ROC as one. You're going to have to do much better than that. Corticopia 12:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree that as Costa Rica no longer acknowledges the ROC as one, but other states do, so ROC can and does in fact have relations with other states. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Explain then why the TRNC and Western Sahara are not included in the top list: both also have a capacity to conduct foregin relations -- many territories, hell, even the province of Quebec in Canada has the capacity to do so. None are considered herein bona fide states, but that is not to deny they may be or other things. Corticopia 17:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The capacity to enter into diplomatic relations is not affected by the actual presence or absence of such diplomatic relations. To dispute this is analogous to claiming that sugar lacks the capacity to dissolve in water whenever there is no water present. sephia karta 15:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I use saccharin; anyhow, again, to dismiss international recognition is analogous to assuming that the world is comprised only of water and sugar. Your assertion may in fact be true, but my concern is much more the neutrality of making this assertion, even when various sources and bodies clearly dispute it and say exactly the opposite. None of you have challenged the reputable sources I have provided, nor have you provided clear, reputable sources to support your assertion. Get back to me when you do. Corticopia 17:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
While you are hurling Wikipedia guideline links all over the place, please point out to me the references that you cited. The Taipei Times article seems totally irrelevant here, it does not at all touch upon the question of whether a state can have the capacity to enter into deiplomatic relations if it has none. sephia karta 20:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
While a substantial component, it's not merely about the capacity of a state to enter into relations with others. I have provided a number of references (e.g., reiterating the positions of the UN and WTO that the ROC is not a sovereign state), including in the article itself, while you have still provided none and have defaulted to polemicism. The only source provided in this discussion is the one provided by PBS about Costa Rica: is that really the crutch of your argument? The burden of proof to include content which may be challenged is on you, not on me. If this cannot or will not be done, I will assume that its inclusion is merely to push a particular viewpoint despite contra-sources and perhaps to make a political statement. And, yes, I take double sugar, no cream. Corticopia 20:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Well no, all I was talking about was the capacity of states to enter into relations with others, and you calimed to have provided relevant sources, which apparently though, you have not. sephia karta 21:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm talking about more than just one criteria -- see here, for example. One may argue that all three qualifications do not apply: for instance, that the ROC government is illegitimate and cannot maintain effective control over its domain given the persistent position of the PRC and the threats of force. Corticopia 22:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This conversation yet again points out again that the only NPOV solution to sovereignty is to list who recognizes whose de iure sovereignty, as there is no unanimity among nations. Nevertheless, that is still the key: who is recognized as the legal de iure authority over territory and population? Sovereignty cannot exist without recognized legality. (Plenty of sources; I deal with the "constitutive theory" article shortly.)
    As a full list of who recognizes who is a rather complex exercise, I might perhaps suggest this interim solution:

  • If A and B and C and D recognize each other as sovereign but are not recognized by any country, E, which is sovereign by a NPOV standard requiring NO INTERPRETATION (e.g, "E" has (1) territory, (2) population, and (3) is a member of the U.N.), then none of A, B, C, or D are sovereign (e.g., South Ossetia recognizes Transnistria).
  • If A and B claim sovereignty over territory X and there is a "split" among the "NPOV-sovereign" nations as to who is "more" sovereign over X, then we note who is in the majority and who is in the minority and quantify. So, with reference to this particular discussion, PRC in the majority, ROC in the minority; note that ROC largely lost recognition as sovereign Chinese authority as the result of the one China policy adopted by multiple nations.
  • Other majority/minority/abstaining recognitions dealt with similarly.

    "Capacity to enter into relations", Montevideo, etc. are all WP:OR mechanisms of attributing sovereignty and do not belong in an encyclopedia article. The constitutive theory of statehood Wiki article, if you read it, essentially rejecting that who recognizes who has any meaning (the only pragmatic means of ascribing sovereignty!), is based on a single source. Further, its description as "pure theory" was inserted by a single-purpose account pushing Transnistrian "sovereignty." Bottom line, the application of either "constitutive" or "declarative" theories of statehood to forming a list of sovereign countries is also WP:OR. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? You reject applying Montevideo (or Badinter, which is easier still) on the ground that it would mean OR and seriously suggest that chosing and applying this intricate algorythm is not purpose built and OR?
Recognition is not a straightforward matter. I challenge you to find me a source that tells us whether the United States recognise North Korea. sephia karta 21:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Pēters J. Vecrumba got it right. Applying the Montevideo convention ourselves is Original Research. It wouldn't be so bad if people were capable of being objective on the matter. But time and again I've seen that it just isn't possible where Taiwan is concerned. There are 5 billion Chinese and more of them learn English everyday. And they're willing to twist a definition as much as necessary to make sure no one says Taiwan is a sovereign nation, country, state, etc.. That's one reason the constitutive theory of statehood is gaining so much traction around the world - it gives nations an excuse to ignore the reality of Taiwan's sovereignty and make statements in accordance with powerful China's fantasies.
Trying to apply simple logic in the face of such numbers and power isn't going to get us far, especially since we're supposed to source everything and most entities large enough to count as sources tend to be large enough to get China's attention and pressure. Readin (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some modifcations

I've made some modifications, based on the introduction of the term states claiming sovereignty (the de facto entities) and added some more information. I am planning to add some information on the extent of sovereignty for states where part of the sovereignty is disputed. Electionworld Talk? 19:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"de facto states" doesn't read very elegantly, and I'm not sure what the de facto signifies here. How about de facto independent states claiming sovereignty? sephia karta 10:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I use now States claiming sovereignty. Electionworld Talk? 11:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

This entry includes links to flags of sovereign states. It is not an article about flags and there is also a Gallery of sovereign-state flags. I do not see any reason to have links to the entries on the flags (the same way as it doens't include links to entries on coats of arms or national anthems.). I suggest to delete these links, marked in the article with Flag. Electionworld Talk? 12:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there until now no objections, I will delete this links soon. Electionworld Talk? 09:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
For reasons stated, I see no problem in removing the links to the flags -- i.e., 'Flag/of' in superscript at end of entries -- but we should retain the actual flag images which precede each entry: flags are important identifiers for states, and these images break up what is/would be an excess of text. Quizimodo 10:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to keep the flag images in, just only remove the links to flag entries, so we agree. Electionworld Talk? 11:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. (At first, I misinterpreted your comments, and then I corrected myself.) :) Quizimodo 11:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that we have the flags, what is the stance on the flags showing local vs. sovereign flags. Take France, for example. The list of territories show each one associated with the French flag, except for French Polynesia. Would it be out of order to show the flags of Wallis and Futuna, St. Pierre and Miquelon, St. Barthelemy, and St. Martin? What is the difference between these and showing the flags of the American, British, and Dutch territories? --Paploo 14:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romanization

I started a new layout for the native names in non-latin script and their romanizations. One can see how it will be at Algeria. I will further update this in the upcoming days. Electionworld Talk? 09:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More information and change in layout

The present intro says it gives information on the extent of the sovereignty of the included entities, but it does not really do that. I plan a revision of the entry by putting the list in a table. This table will have in the ledt colomn (nearly) the same info as the present list, but in a second colomn information will be included on the extent of sovereignty. I am working on that new list in user:Electionworld/List of sovereign states and plan to include recent improvements of the present list as much as possible. You are welcome to visit the new version. Electionworld Talk? 12:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposal will be carried out in some minutes. One important difference is the addition of Palestine, the entity having observer status at UNO. For the rest the same entities are included. Electionworld Talk? 20:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Some comments, though:
(1) Individual entries appear difficult to distinguish: perhaps they can be separated by lines or alternating shades?
(2) The formatting is somewhat tortuous: for example, I simply tried to remove what appears to be a parasite entry for the Republic of Cameroon (in bold beneath main entry), and it appears to screw up the formatting. This only appears the case when editing an individual section (i.e., C), as opposed to the entire article. In any event, perhaps it would be better to use a proper (read: readily editable) table to store and organise all of this information?
(3) There are appear to be a number of </ref> instances, presumably without accompanying <ref> instances to create proper references/notes.
Quizimodo 23:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work on recent changes; as you can see, I added a table and lines for better viewing. (I also apologise if I inadvertently eliminated other edits made at the same time.)
One comment, though: I have added the prior name for Democratic Republic of the Congo (AKA Congo-Kinshasa) – Zaire – because, despite the change of name, it is still often referred to by its former name and (importantly) to promote clarity, i.e., to better distinguish it from the other (Republic of the) Congo (AKA Congo-Brazzaville). For instance, in my fairly recent volume of the Oxford English Dictionary, the main country's entry is under Zaire. I don't believe there is similar confusion with Benin, but perhaps with the name of Burkina Faso (AKA Burkina, Upper Volta), so I'm unsure why prior names are being added for those entities. Thoughts? Quizimodo 07:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

After Kabila seized power in Zaire, the country was renamed into Congo. Zaire is an outdated name. None of my present atlases uses the name Zaire (I collect atlases). I don't know why OED still uses Zaire, but it is just wrong. I am not aware of any other sources still refering to the country as Zaire, so to say often is just not right. What is the edition year of your OED, that might explain it? I do not mind giving the former name, but than the same goes for Benin and Burkina. Electionworld Talk? 14:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Understood; writing this remotely, I believe the year of my edition of the OED is 2002. I also collect atlases, and can corroborate your understanding. Please note: I only think it prudent to include 'Zaire' as an alternate/prior name to clarify/better distinguish the Congos ... in case a visitor is trapped in the 1990s. :) Quizimodo 15:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the border in the table and must admit, I don't really like all the borders. I think horinzontal lines would be enough. I will think about how to do that. Electionworld Talk? 14:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the table borders help more than hinder, and represent an improvement over the original table: it otherwise looked light a jumble of text without much structure, and to retrofit the table with borders was easy enough. However, I think it enough to only include horizontal lines too, but was not sure how to do this in a timely way, thus ... Quizimodo 15:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:List of sovereign states/Test for a test version of a part of the list. Electionworld Talk? 07:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Great -- boldly, I've retrofitted the table with these changes. Enjoy! Quizimodo 10:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I like what I see, good work! Two things you may want to add: how many states the SADR is recognised by and that it is a member of the African Union, and how many states the ROC is recognised by and that it not only additionally claims these islands, but also the whole of the PRC, and possibly (I am not sure) Mongolia. sephia karta 03:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to US blurb

Here are the edits i've made to the US section of the article:

The article described Guam, the USVI, etc. as US "overseas territories". This term is incorrect. A list of terms used when talking about the insular areas is here: [10]. The term "overseas territory" is not on the list. I have replaced it with "territories and commonwealths" which seems to be preferred by the Interior Dept: [11]. Second, I have removed this sentence:

Most of the overseas posessions in the Pacific Ocean, with the exception of Wake Island form part of the United States Pacific Island Wildlife Refuges.

This is correct, but misleading. The "United States Pacific Island Wildlife Refuges" is a CIA term to refer to seven National Wildlife Refuges in the Pacific, which happen to match seven of eight minor territories in the Pacific. It should not be used for the minor outlying islands as a whole; instead I have used "United States Minor Outlying Islands", which the ISO uses. - Thanks, Hoshie 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Local flags vs. National flags

Again I ask:

Now that we have the flags, what is the stance on the flags showing local vs. sovereign flags. Take France, for example. The list of territories show each one associated with the French flag, except for French Polynesia. Would it be out of order to show the flags of Wallis and Futuna, St. Pierre and Miquelon, St. Barthelemy, and St. Martin? What is the difference between these and showing the flags of the American, British, and Dutch territories? --Paploo 23:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the status of the fal. If it is the official flag, I do not see any problem whowing these flags. Often it is a inoffical flag, then it shouldn't be listed. Electionworld Talk? 10:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SADR, the Arab league, and the OIC

The 'A' in "SADR" means Arab, so its relation to the Arab League of states is worth mentionning. The SADR claims to represent a population 100% muslim, one of the rare groups on earth that have no other religious minorities. All muslim-majority states, or even partly-muslim, are members or observers of the OIC, the SADR is not. So that merits to be mentionned especially when the Asian African partership which is not a union/league/organisation/.. is mentionned. The Arab League and the OIC are thus the most relevant organizations to be mentionned. How can then Koavf revert and comment that they are "superfluous organizations *not* associated"?.--A Jalil 08:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you noticed the title of this article? List of sovereign states: a list, a list, a list!. So, if you possess important informations about SADR, I suggest you to complete Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic if need be, and to drop the SADR part in this article. --Juiced lemon 17:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entities claiming sovereignty

So based on the list's logic, if the list was compiled before 1971, the People's Republic of China would be merely an entity that was merely claiming sovereignty and the Republic of China would be considered a sovereign state. After 1971, the People's Republic of China suddenly became a sovreign state and the Republic of China suddenly became an entity that merely claims sovereignty. The Wikipedia now sounds like the US State Department because this is exactly what the US State Department did before and after 1979. There is also the danger of saying that the Wikipedia downgraded the Republic of China from a sovereign state into a mere wanna-be state entity effective August 2007. Therefore Wikimania Taipei was hosted at an entity rather than a sovereign state. Then several months later, a different group of maintainers think otherwise, and have the Wikipedia upgrade the Republic of China back as a sovereign state. That would make a great uncyclopedia article I must sarcastically say. 122.124.17.223 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead to the article says the Montevideo convention is used to determine inclusion in the list. According to this article, the convention uses "capacity to enter into relations with the other states", the number of such relations. Since Taiwan has at least one such relation, it has demonstrated the "capacity". That other nations have not chosen to do so isn't relevant. Not including Taiwan in the list of sovereign states is violating NPOV. Either Taiwan needs to be included or the introductory paragraphs need correcting. Why not ditch the word "sovereign" and the Montevideo convention and frankly say that this is a list of nations with wide recognition by other nations? Readin (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
There are provisions in the article which rightly allow for grey areas. Explain your rationale to the folks at the UN, WHO, EU, and many other bodies which do NOT recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state. Also, the ROC's dominion over Taiwan may be tenuous, since its territory is under constant threat from the PRC. Your insistence on indicating that it is a sovereign state, given the body of contra-evidence, is as partial as saying that it is not. Fixation on this also curious, given (as pointed out above) the exclusion of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Western Sahara, which also may have capacities to enter into relations with other states. Corticopia (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll explain my to the UN and WHO that Taiwan is a sovereign state after you explain to the big tobacco companies that tobacco causes lung cancer and explain to Al Qaeda how evolution leads to biodiversity. The ROC's dominion over Taiwan may be threatened, but the threats have not yet materialized. The ROC's dominion over Taiwan is as real as French Third Republic's dominion over France was in 1938. Predicting the future of ROC's dominion would truly be original research. You say my insistence on saying Taiwan is sovereign is as impartial as saying it is not is good reason that this article's claim to be a "list of sovereign states" is problematic. I don't know enough about Northern Cyprus or Western Sahara to answer your questions. I know almost nothing about Western Sahara. What little I know of Northern Cyprus leads me to believe that a good argument could be made that it's relations with Turkey aren't truly foreign relations because it is in fact part of Turkey (a bit like the republics of the USSR having their own UN representatives), but I'll admit that I could be way off on that. Perhaps Northern Cyprus is sovereign. I don't know. But I know Taiwan, and other than a heavy reliance on the United States (not unusual for a modern state), it is as sovereign as any other nation. Readin (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is to be a statement of the UN/WHO/EU's POV (or more generally, a statement of general diplomatic stances by large organizations) it should be labeled as such, rather than pretending to be a list of sovereign states under the Montevideo convention. Otherwise, this whole article is just POV pushing and should be deleted. Readin (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm considering proposing deletion of this article because because it contains "# Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources". But maybe I'm wrong. What reliable sources are there for saying which nations are sovereign under the Montevideo convention (which is what this article claims to be about). The UN doesn't use that convention to qualify members, nor do most other organizations. So what reliable sources are there? And what makes those sources reliable? Readin (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything you have mentioned has been discussed beforehand. Please provide sources that the ROC is a sovereign state -- I'm sure you can, no? Self-insinuations from the Taiwanese government are not sufficient without corroboration. And, of course, they must be deemed reliable too. Good luck.
There are a number of statements that provide for the content, particularly notions regarding international recognition and "The list includes all states that satisfy these criteria and claim independence; however, the aforementioned qualifications are not absolute and permit variations." Aside from that, if you take issue with the first sentence or rationale, then it may be changed to allow more wiggle-room. But warnings to nominate the article/list for deletion because you are not satisfied with Taiwan's placement in it ring rather false. Please help build the article; if not, advocate for Taiwan's political independence elsewhere, please. Corticopia (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops, my bad, just noticed the first list is "Internationally recognized" states, not "sovereign states. I misread and thought Taiwan was not included in list of sovereign nations meeting the four Montevideo criteria. Now I see it was. My apologies (blush). Someone told me Taiwan had been demoted from "sovereign" on this page and I jumped in without reading carefully enough. I should know better. Sorry to cause such a ruckus. Readin (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I modified a couple headers so the next person won't get confused like I did. If we're going to say "This list derives its definition of a sovereign state from Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention of 1933.", and then say "The list includes all states that satisfy these criteria and claim independence;", then if a country is on the list, mustn't it satisfy the conditions to be a "sovereign state"? The question then is whether it is "internationally" recognized. I modified headers to make the distinction clearer. Readin (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Was just looking at the Montevideo Convention page and noticed this (emphasis added):

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
Furthermore, the first sentence of article 3 explicitly states that "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." This is known as the declarative theory of statehood.

So why do we have some states in a separate list? Readin (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, nothing exists in isolation: your assumption is that the declarative theory of statehood is the only one to consider. Of course, that isn't so, with there also being constitutive theory of statehood. Also note that the Montevideo Convention was signed by only 16 states, though in principle it applies to and others. As well, sources have been provided that note the importance of international recognition, so not so easily can that be cast aside. In the article regarding the Convention, I believe the position of Switzerland describes the situation best:
  • "neither a political unit needs to be recognized to become a state, nor does a state have the obligation to recognize another one. At the same time, neither recognition is enough to create a state, nor does its absence abolish it."[1]
And, in this respect, Taiwan is no different from Western Sahara, the TRNC, Palestine, et al. Besides, there is a list of countries that include entities that may or may not be bona fide sovereign states. This article should be no different regarding states for which there is contention and a lack of general recognition, and I believe it deals with this ambiguity fairly well. So that's that. Corticopia (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The beginning of the article says the criteria for inclusion is Montevideo Convention. So why not apply the convention equally? Readin (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? The article says a number of things, one of which is that it isn't applied equally, nor should it be given the reality and contra-evidence. Corticopia (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Kingdom of the Netherlands

I think the entry about the Netherlands is ambiguous: the link in the first column is to the country of the Netherlands itself, but in the second column this is taken as synonymous with the Kingdom of the Netherlands. In the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Aruba, the Netherlands Antilles and the Netherlands officially have an equal status, so should either be included each seperately, or under the name "Kingdom of the Netherlands" in the first column. I'll change it in the beginning of February, according to reactions. Twerbrou (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo?

Ought we discuss this? john k (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question. :) My suggestion: Let's refrain from editing the article for about 2 weeks. In the meantime, we will see:
  1. who recognises Kosovo
  2. what oppinions/sources we users have about Kosovo being sovereign (as opposed to dependent of the UN/EU/whatever)
What do you say? Dpotop (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice plan )) We'll ask anyone who will want to add it for sources. I'm pretty sure it'll end up in the 'Other states' sub-list though. Alæxis¿question? 20:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It ought to go immediately into "Other states," I think. It is just as relevant as South Ossetia, or whatever. john k (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We could include Kosovo in the list in the "other states" questions with a hidden comment to discourage people form edit waring (other states is about as neutral as we can get, leaving it out could support one side of the argument). I will make this change, feel free to discuss and edit/revert if necessary)Dn9ahx (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how we can exclude it from "other states" when we include Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and so forth. john k (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with JohnK. It's a matter of fairness w.r.t. the "Other States". Dpotop (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added it to other states with a disclaimer Dn9ahx (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: with multi-state recognition I think it deserves to be in the same section, but now in the sub-list with Palestine, Taiwan and the SADR; I've moved it to there but am willing to listen to objections. --Pretty Green (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the current state of formal recognitions? john k (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hot off the presses: [12]. This at least puts it a step above Taiwan and Palestine. I agree that we should wait before making any changes to the article, though.—Chowbok ☠ 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Recognised by at least seven or as many as about twelve states, depending on your sources; states such as France have sent formal letters of recognition; I think the 'minority of UN members' phrase will cover us for a while, maybe even permanently. --Pretty Green (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that Kosovo will end with lots of recognition (USA, most EU states), but without UN and other international organizations. However, I am highly skeptical regarding the ability of the new "state" to function as such. For instance, the EU will ensure for some time (at least in part) the police and judicial function of the new state. I thought sovereignty included the ability to police and judge your people. So, from this POV, I'd say there's no comparison between Kosovo and Taiwan, and even the comparison with the Palestinian territories is not exaggerated. Dpotop (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well there's little agreement as to what makes something 'sovereign' - hence the current diplomatic situation and Wikipedia's numerous lists and caveats. In the mjaortiy of cases, entites are clearly sovereign or not, but its the border cases which become contentious.
In practice, each case is individual and comparisons are difficult to make. For exmaple, Iraq didn't control its own police and judicial system from 2002-2006/7 and is only slowly having these things returned to its control - yet the nation's sovereignty was not questioned. Taiwan is not oficially viewed as sovereign by most nations, but as it has the capability to act on the intenational stage, it is arguably a de facto sovereign entity. Somalia is often given as a classic example as a sovereign state which has no control over its territroy; and what about the TNC, which operates internally as a sovereign state but basically not at all externally?
The list on this page seems to be classified by recognition, which is probably the best way as it is more easily quantifiable and understandable than control/security issues, which are often much more complex. In that sense, Kosovo is in the sub-group with Taiwan, SADR and Palestine as recognised by more than one sovereign; but to state that this means these four entities have anything else in common would indeed be wrong - however the article does not make that claim. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
PS, I agree with your assesment on what will probably happen to Kosovo. Barring a war with Serbia, I would have thought it would slowy develop its own police/army forces, but UN/EU troops could be there for decades. There are many soveriegn entities, however, who have external forces controlling their security. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
To be frank, I'm quite pessimistic regarding the situation in that region. A realistic scenario will have Kosovo at the center of a continuing "Greater Albania" movement, fueling terrorism in Europe. Not to mention lawlessness (traficking of all kinds, which is probably as important as an argument for "independence" as the ethnic problems). Dpotop (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Question on official languages of Afghanistan

The Afghanistan page says that the official languages of Afghanistan are Pashto and Persian, in that order. Why is there no Pashto short and long form names for it? Paploo (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)