Talk:List of sovereign states

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured list List of sovereign states is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.

Possible inclusion of Scotland

If the referendum results in a majority Yes, we should know that doesn't mean  Scotland would be included right away. I think the following note should be included in the United Kingdom's entry. My edit is shown in green.

Short and formal names Membership within the UN System Sovereignty dispute Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty
ZZZUN member states or observer states A AAA ZZZ
 United Kingdom – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland A UN member state A None Member of the EU. The United Kingdom is a Commonwealth realm consisting of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Since the 2014 referendum, Scotland and the United Kingdom have been negotiating Scottish independence, which will take place on March 24, 2016.[1]

The United Kingdom has the following overseas territories:

The British monarch has direct sovereignty over three self-governing Crown dependencies:

Thoughts? [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 02:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is moot.
If the result had been "yes", I would have objected on the basis that the point was factually untrue: there would have been no evidence that any negotiations had taken place between the vote being called and the point being added.
But by the time you posted this, the "no" was already considered the most likely winner by the UK media. The BBC called the referendum for the "no" less than an hour and a half after your message - and the direction had been clear for a fair while by that stage. Patience! Kahastok talk 07:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Early lead for No vote in Scotland counting". Al Jazeera. September 19, 2014. Retrieved September 19, 2014. A "Yes" vote would trigger months of negotiations between Scotland and the British government over the messy details of independence, which Scottish authorities say will take effect on March 24, 2016, the anniversary of the date in 1707 that Scotland decided to unite with Britain. 

Republic of San Marino → Most Serene Republic of San Marino

It's the latter. It is the only country in the world that still uses "Most Serene" and the info box of San Marino uses it. I added this to the list but was reverted.  — ₳aron 22:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names give the formal name as "Republic of San Marino". TDL (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I have always understood it to be as User:Calvin999 says 'the Most Serene Republic of San Marino'. I don't think that the UN is the authority that makes names of countries what they are. It's the countries themselves that decide what they are called. Perhaps our neighborhood San Marino embassy could inform us. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Well if we're going to base the formal names on this document, then maybe we should rename Nation of Brunei, Abode of Peace to the shorter Brunei Darussalam? [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 04:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd agree that Brunei should be changed as well. The English translation is only used very rarely in my experience.
As for San Marino, yes the UNGEGN doesn't have the authority to name countries, but they are the world experts at reporting what countries have decided to call themselves. In addition, the EU style guide lists the full name as "Republic of San Marino", as does the ISO. Britannica agrees that this is the official name, but lists "Most Serene Republic of San Marino" as an "alternate long-form name". TDL (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The info box on San Marino uses it, and if you look at Most Serene Republic, it says "is the only modern independent state to use the style. Although commonly referred to as the Republic of San Marino or simply San Marino, it officially retains the longer form."  — ₳aron 08:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so what other articles do has no influence on what we should do here. If you look at the sources linked from Most Serene Republic, none of them actually support the claim in the article, nor are there any sources linked from San Marino that claim it is the official name. (The infobox was just changed by an anonymous IP a few months ago.) Meanwhile, I've provided several quite authoritative sources which claim otherwise. TDL (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I reject that linked statement, because there should be consistency across linked articles. Different giving information on different articles doesn't help at all. If you've provided source articles claiming that the long form is not official, then that's fine, but please apply your findings to San Marino and Most Serene Republic to avoid confusion and inconsistency.  — ₳aron 19:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Britannica: "Sovereignty is neither created by recognition nor destroyed by non recognition"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How about this: "Sovereignty is neither created by recognition nor destroyed by non recognition.” (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, edition 15, part 3, vol 17, 1981, p. 312). It pretty much invalidates the entire Criteria section that claims UN recognition creates sovereignty. Whoever wrote this article has never been to a law school, even as a visitor. Then they wonder why Britannica is so esteemed, and why Wikipedia is so ridiculed. (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Britannica is not so universally esteemed. It depends on the field and the article. In my own field, it is probably the least reliable source available. --Taivo (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes, do make us laugh. More, more... (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure that you don't think so, but Britannica is not the final authority for anything. Depending on the field, it might be one reliable source of many. --Taivo (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
You also completely misunderstand the section on sovereignty. There are more criteria than just UN membership that are used for determining sovereignty. --Taivo (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The Criteria section relies mostly on UN membership such as "recognition by at least one UN member." (Ha Ha) Britannica on the other hand is written, edited and proofed by world's leading experts on international law. Please no UN handbooks and tour guides, or anonymous "editors." The subject matter is too serious to be left to Wikipedia rules of thumb such as the infamous "knowledge based on majority vote." (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
If you don't understand Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources or consensus, then you shouldn't be editing here until you do. You clearly are ignorant of the relative reliability of Britannica as a source or the fact that Wikipedia isn't a mirror site for it. --Taivo (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Who said anything about Wikipedia being a mirror for Britannica? I simply pointed at the most authoritative reference out there. Enough said. Or do you prefer cherry-picking some UN tour guides that tell tales of how great the UN is, instead? Tune in to latest news to see how great the UN really is. (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Your view of Britannica as "the most authoritative reference out there" is utterly laughable. It is one reference out there, not the only one and not necessarily the best. Your view that throwing the word "Britannica" into a conversation ends all discussion is terribly naive and utterly unscholarly. When was the last time your university professor allowed you to copy an article out of EB as a term paper or allowed you to use it as your only reference? "Never" is the correct answer. There's a reason for that. EB represents a single author's opinion and EB doesn't always even get the best scholars to write articles. --Taivo (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Rubbish. As I said, Britannica is written by leading authorities in the field. Not talking jingle bells here, but international law. British scholars obviously rule in that area. Enough said, for anyone with a properly functioning brain that is. (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
If Britannica constitutes your version of "international law", then you clearly don't have one of those "properly functioning brains". News flash, anon IP, there are many, many more authoritative sources in any field, including this one, than a general-purpose encyclopedia. --Taivo (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You can "newsflash" all that you want but trying to make it personal will not help you. There is no "my version". For ages, Britannica has been regarded as The source of concise, accurate knowledge. Take it or leave it. Wikischmacky will never come close, together with your "anonymous editors" bwwhhahahahhaha. (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Really, always a source of "concise, accurate knowledge" even though studies have found that Wikipedia, a site where anyone can edit entries, is nearly as accurate as Britannica. If they are so amazing then why is it that they can barely beat wikipedia in an accuracy test. Also, seriously Britannica is not international law, get with reality. SantiLak (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
"accuracy test"? bwhhahahahahha... "a site where anyone can edit entries" bwhahahahahahahah "get with reality" bwhahahahaha (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Tertiary sources such as encyclopedias are usually poor sources to use because they often come down on one side or the other of disputed concepts and do not tell us where they got their information. Furthermore, courts do not use EB as an authority for law, they use case law and textbooks. In this case there are various methods of determining sovereignty. OTOH this article appears to be original research. We should point out the conflicting criteria used for determining state sovereignty in an article about state sovereignty and include a link to the list of member states of the UN. That would eliminate the needless discussion over minor issues such as whether the Cook Islands is a sovereign state or a dependency. TFD (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Courts determine sovereignty? bwwhhahahahahah (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Really? Is it a minor issue that for example Bosnia and Herzegovina is listed under sovereign states and it is common knowledge that it has a foreign governor? He can enact and abolish any law, send anyone to prison without trial, order anybody to be hired or fired in any office, arrest and pardon citizens as pleases him? He owns the place. There has never been a more obvious example of colony in human history, and you list it as sovereign. Bravo for Wikipedia. accuracy bwhahahahah Dark Ages perhaps. Blood and tears all over your hands, "anonymous editors" (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Anon IP, if you can't edit without inserting your insipid comments in the middle of someone else's comments, then perhaps you shouldn't be here in Wikipedia editing at all. The Four Deuces is exactly right--Britannica is neither a primary source (transcript of a court ruling, text of a law), nor a secondary source (a scholarly appraisal of primary sources), but a tertiary one (a distillation of secondary sources). Wikipedia, per WP:RS prefers secondary sources over tertiary ones since the scholarship is always considered to be more authoritative (as it is in the real world). Scholarly writing in my own field never uses Britannica as a source--it's considered no more authoritative for actual scholarship than a college textbook. But this is not the thread to deal with The Four Deuces' comments about original research. In this thread we expose the anon IP's religious worship of Britannica for what it is--not relevant to Wikipedia. And the anon IP's true anti-Bosnian agenda is revealed for what it is with his/her last comment. --Taivo (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The IPs are socks of User:Bosnipedian, so it is best to WP:DENY recognition.
That being said, since Bosnipedian has such a fancy for Britannica, perhaps Bosnipedian should spend some time reading Britannica. For example: "International recognition is important evidence that the factual criteria of statehood actually have been fulfilled." The article does not suggest that sovereign states are created by recognition, as the IP mistakenly claims, but rather it uses recognition as evidence that the statehood criteria is satisfied, which is precisely what Britannica says. TDL (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
So to you, pointing out the fact that the poor country is a colony, is anti Bosnian? How you people succeed in being so inhumane, beats me. I mean, in addition to covering up the blood and tears of colonialism. Also, you mix apples and oranges when comparing sovereignty with statehood. Those are not even similar, unless you use 6th Fleet as your argument. Besides, the article to which you are commenting is on sovereignty, not statehood. Finally, I never said sovereign states are created by recognition; your article says sovereignty is obtained through recognition by at least 1 UN member, which is rubbish seen only in Wikipedia. Britannica on the other hand is clear and focused, as always, because it is written by leading experts, not anonymous pricks with 6th fleet as their only backing. By the by, who the hell is Bosnapedean? (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What idiot tried "closing" this discussion? How can you close a discussion in a "encyclopedia that everyone can edit"? What a hole. What a dump. (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Discussions can't be "closed", that means they are censored. Does Wikipedia censor? Obviously yes. (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussions can be closed and that doesn't mean they are censored. - SantiLak (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Donetsk & Lugansk autonomy

Since I'm placed under WP:1RR, I have to bring the issue on my recent edits here. I edited Ukraine's entry to look like this:

Short and formal names Membership within the UN System Sovereignty dispute Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty
ZZZUN member states or observer states A AAA ZZZ
 Ukraine A UN member state A None Under the Minsk Protocol, the following territories are given special statuses that grant them limited self-rule:[1][Note 1]

South Ossetia recognizes these territories as sovereign states.[2][3][4][5]

ZZZUN member states and observer states A ZZZ ZZZ

My edits were reverted twice by Volunteer Marek. The notes attached to our reverts went as followed:

  • Volunteer Marek: these are not soverign [sic] states or anything close to it - see the big red "ATTENTION EDITORS" that pops up when you try to edit this page
  • Soffredo: What I wrote did not call them sovereign states (I simply mentioned SO). They are territories that were granted limited self rule.
  • Volunteer Marek: doesn't matter what you wrote, please read the article title: List of <u>soverign [sic] states</u>. Also please read the huge red notice that says "Attention editors" which says "Only states which are "often regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of ...

I think that this editor didn't notice that I added an autonomy note and reliable source after the sentence talking about how the "territories are given special statuses that grant them limited self-rule". I don't think I went against the rules/criteria of the article since the "Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty" says it includes information on "Any autonomous areas inside the territory of the sovereign state". I also mentioned South Ossetia's recognition of these territories since the section can also include information about "The extent to which a state's sovereignty is recognised internationally." [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 21:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek is quite right. There's nothing to say that these entities meet the standard such that their flags and suchlike are appropriate. There are many areas with "limited self-rule" that do not get listed here in this way, and there's no reason for these to be exceptions. Kahastok talk 21:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, like which areas? And since where was there a standard to meet for these entities? These aren't special exceptions (but maybe their recognition from South Ossetia could make them one). I see this as being a similar case to Syrian Kurdistan, except that the DNR and LNR were granted de jure autonomy. There is no reason to be difficult when it's known that the rebels have full control over certain areas. [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 21:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
They aren't special exceptions, so why are you treating them as such? There are plenty of areas with limited self-rule, very few have flags and names. Scotland has limited self-rule. Hawaii has limited self-rule. Flanders has limited self-rule. Shoot, for a given definition of "limited self-rule", Berlaimont has limited self-rule. None of those are are given flags and only one is named. There is no need for Donetsk or Luhansk to be exceptions. Kahastok talk 22:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The difference being Donetsk and Lugansk do not claim to be part of the State. They participated in the Minsk Protocol as parties equal to that of Ukraine and Russia. They are de jure autonomous entities claiming statehood like Somaliland. Also, Scotland is mentioned in the United Kingdom's entry, so why make that an exception? [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 22:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The difference between the terrorist states of Donetsk and Luhansk is that while there have been overtures by the legitimate Ukrainian government to grant limited autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk regions, those two regions have neither accepted nor implemented the conditions which would make them autonomous within Ukraine. They are both still being run by Russians and Russian mercenaries who continue fighting, reject any notion of autonomy within Ukraine, and demand independence. They did not allow their Ukrainian citizens to participate in the election on 26 October (which was one of the conditions of the Minsk agreement) and they are holding their own sham election for independent parliaments next week. Transnistria is more or less stable and has been for a couple of decades. But Donetsk and Luhansk are not actual entities at this time, they are only potential entities. --Taivo (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The DNR and LNR are not potential entities. Grigory Karasin, the Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, said "I wish all participants of the election, that at this time respected Ukrainian security forces cease-fire to avoid bloodshed, and people could express their opinion as to who they would like to see at the head of the territorial entities".[6] Also, it's hard to take your response seriously since you're using the terms "terrorist states" and "sham elections". You saying they reject any notion of autonomy within Ukraine is wrong in the sense that they agreed to the Minsk Protocol, granting them autonomy. This isn't their plan for the future, but this plan is meant to represent what's currently happening, right? Each entry on the List is allowed to have information on autonomous areas and the international recognition of a State's sovereignty. There is no reason why we shouldn't include the DNR or LNR. There is no reason why we should be ignoring their existence. We are not listing them as sovereign states. [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 23:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
You are quite wrong about the Russians running Donetsk and Luhansk accepting the Ukrainian position on autonomy. Your reading of the news apparently stopped on September 5. If they actually accepted the Minsk accords, they would have participated in the elections on Sunday and would not be holding their own elections next week. The Russians who run the so-called DNR and LNR have publicly stated that the Minsk agreement is dead and they will continue fighting to expand their territory (as if they ever stopped). In addition, there are no borders for the so-called DNR and LNR--only ceasefire lines that the terrorists refuse to accept in their continuing attempts to expand the territory under their control. The borders of the pseudo-states are not contiguous with the borders of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. In addition, Russia, and the pseudo-states have violated the Minsk agreement by not allowing full access to the OSCE along the entire Ukrainian border and helping Ukraine to control its borders. And the facts which I stated are correct, whether you like my tone of voice or not. --Taivo (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Well explained! I agree. And we have a List of states with limited recognition. My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Ukraine crisis: Russia to recognise rebel vote in Donetsk and Luhansk". BBC. October 28, 2014. Retrieved October 28, 2014. The 2 November vote is much earlier than was agreed by Ukrainian legislation granting the breakaway regions limited self-rule. 
  2. ^ "South Ossetia recognizes independence of Donetsk People’s Republic". ITAR-TASS. 27 June 2014. Archived from the original on 22 July 2014. Retrieved 28 June 2014. }
  3. ^ "Указ "О признании Луганской Народной Республики"" (in Russian). President of South Ossetia. 18 June 2014. Archived from the original on 15 July 2014. Retrieved 19 June 2014. 
  4. ^ "South Ossetia recognizes self-proclaimed Lugansk People's Republic". Voice of Russia. 17 June 2014. Archived from the original on 14 July 2014. 
  5. ^ "Lugansk launching negotiations to establish diplomatic relations with S Ossetia". Voice of Russia. 19 June 2014. Archived from the original on 14 July 2014. 
  6. ^ Москва надеется на соблюдение перемирия во время выборов на Донбассе

Separate Palestine and Vatican City

Just some food for thought, what is the possibility of placing both the sections for Palestine and Vatican City into a separate column under "UN member states" but above "other states". This being because they are both observer states and not full member states of the United Nations General Assembly. thanks, tom991

I don't actually see how this will improve the content. In fact, it may well serve as a precedent for other users to ask that sovereign states disputed/not recognised by any given number of other states be placed above the two you are suggesting. This isn't the purpose of the list, therefore it's best served by the use of alphabetical order. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=Note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}} template (see the help page).