Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in North America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject North America (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Version 0.5      (Rated NA-Class)
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.

U forgot Melinaville —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment moved from the article[edit]

The comment below was posted in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 10:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This table should read as:

Bajo Nuevo & Serranilla[edit]

Bajo Nuevo Bank and Serranilla Bank were previously listed as being grouped with the United States Minor Outlying Islands. Whatever U.S. government sources lists them as so (according to the USMOI article, there's only one--and the link is broken), is irrelevant until you can establish that the U.S. actually has these banks under their control. The Colombian government lists them as being part of San Andres Department, so there's your equivelant.

Unless an editor can find confirmation from a reliable source, de facto jurisdiction over these banks will remain unconfirmed, and this page should reflect that. Rennell435 (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed these areas from the North America page. See here for reasons. Rennell435 (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of who occupies them they should still be listed, since they are political divisions of North America. Similar to how the palestinian territories are listed on the Asian page, but are occupied by IsrealXavierGreen (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the similarity there. The State of Palestine is recognised as a sovereign state by a large number of others, and it's not occupied by Israelis, it's just viewed as being part of Israel by the states that don't recognise its sovereignty. But, anyway, can we finish the discussion on the USMOI talk page before we get into another here? Rennell435 (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


These are not dependent territories of Colombia. They are considered integral parts of the country. Therefore, they don't go on the list. As it was before, it had the U.S. flag because some sources state that the U.S. considers these dependent territories of the United States. That was correct, but listing them with Colombian flags doesn't make sense because in Colombia's perspective, they aren't dependencies. Rennell435 (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This argument may have an application in the Americas, but it doesn't apply here. Just as the integral French areas are included in this list, so should the integral colombian territories, as they belong to non-North American states. Raise the issue on the americas article if you want to discuss it further there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
So then why aren't the internal dependencies of Venezuela, like Isla Aves listed? Rennell435 (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
One possibility is that no-body bothered to. Personally I didn't add Isla Aves as its status as an island is disputed, it sometimes disappears completely underwater. Most other venezuelan islands are never ever considered to be part of North America. I'm placing them back on both articles for now, will try and rework the notes, wait for other opinions.
(What is an internal dependency?) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
There's absolutely no consistency here! What happened? Before recently, these territories were put on the list because they were administered as dependent territories by the United States. They were shaded a different colour because the administration was not in effect and was not internationally recognised. Now (apparently) the system's changed and any territory under the sovereignty of a non-local nation is included... But then where's everything else? Logically under this system, Bajo Nuevo and Serranilla wouldn't be mentioned—Archipiélago de San Andrés, Providencia y Santa Catalina would.
But then why are these two territories alone still shaded as "disputed territories"? Last time I checked, Clipperton was claimed by Mexico, Navassa was claimed by Haiti, and dozens of territorial disputes exist elsewhere (my entire country's territory is claimed by our neighbour!).
The Federal Dependencies of Venezuela are internal dependencies, and they are islands in the Caribbean—all of them are further from the mainland than Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao, which are geographically part of the same chain of islands, and miles more so than are Trinidad and Tobago! What's your source for saying that they are "never ever considered to be part of North America"?
What about Panama, and the common view that the divide between north and south America is at the Canal? Rennell435 (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
So why did you add the banks back on the American list? I no longer understand your reasoning... Rennell435 (talk) 09:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
If you feel they should be changed back to the USA, feel free. Alternatively, I wouldn't object to the inclusion of that Archipelago instead of the two banks. As for the other territorial disputes, they can easily be accommodated with notes, as can the current ones (and yes you're right, just having those two shaded is a bit off). As for the Venezuelan islands, if you find a WP:RS for they're being included in North America, then fine. It is the burden of the person who wants to include something to provide sources. Sources for Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles being part of North America are plentiful, maybe not for the Venezuelan ones (excepting Isla Aves). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Technically all three are polites in North America, legally all three entities exist.XavierGreen (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Article title[edit]

There has been an extensive debate over at Talk:List of European countries and territories about what should and should not be included in the list because of the title. Most editors there support moving the page to either List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe or List of European sovereign states and territories. If the European list is moved it is likely this list will be moved as well in the next few days unless there is opposition to such a move here. It would help to avoid confusion and disputes if the all of these lists (countries and territories by continents) have the same title. Saying sovereign state rather than country is a more precise term and is in line with the fact List of countries redirects to the list of sovereign states article.

If you have thoughts on the title please raise them here or ideally join the debate at Talk:List of European countries and territories. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Central America[edit]

There is no reason that Central America needs to be specified on this list. Unless the whole continent is going to be broken into pieces, there is no reason to only include Central America. List of European countries and territories does not specify which countries are in Central Europe or any other part of Europe. Breaking List of countries and territories in the Americas into pieces would be more useful than doing it to this list. There is no reason why the Caribbean Community should not be listed if the NAFTA is. Also, Alex, do not accuse other users of having political biases based on no evidence what so ever. I am English/Australian, so why you would think I wouldn't want Mexico to be highlighted makes no sense to me. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It would look like an ugly coloured rainbow if we colour coded these lists into as many different groupings as possible. The European Union is a special case, i do not think NAFTA needs highlighting on this page, especially if it is going to lead to demands for more groups to be coloured.
I never spotted that List of countries and territories in the Americas article lol. I can see a case for splitting that into sections, but there is no need for it to be done on this page. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually there is JUST ONE AMERICA and all citizens of these 30 odd countries must be called "Americans" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Coat of arms of Dominica.png[edit]

The image File:Coat of arms of Dominica.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Barbuda and Redonda[edit]

I see why my edits were reverted. On both the Barbuda and Redonda pages it says in the first sentence that both islands are part of Antigua and Barbuda, implying integration. However, on the Antigua and Barbuda page and on its administrative division page, it says that Barbuda and Redonda are dependencies i.e not integral parts of Antigua and Barbuda. None of these statements are backed up with sources. Whoever edited those pages needs to sight their source for it or I suggest going for what the most respected geographical authority says. (I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know what that is here.)Anyway, Barbuda and Redonda can't be both dependencies and integral parts, and as soon as this is resolved all related pages (including this one) should reflect this. David815 (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia David815. From what I can tell, Barbuda and Redonda seem to have some status of autonomy from the island of Antigua (where the capital is located) but are called "dependencies". The USA's state department website has listed "Administrative subdivisions: Six parishes and two dependencies (Barbuda and Redonda)." So while they are called dependencies, they are under administrative subdivisions. This is opposed to say the state departments article on the UK which states "Subdivisions: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland (municipalities, counties, and parliamentary constituencies)." and the only mention of the British dependencies is the sentence "There are, however, 13 former British colonies--including Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, and others--which have elected to continue their political links with London and are known as British Overseas Territories." The state department has its own list of dependencies, which while obviously not definitive doesn't include Barbuda or Redonda. I haven't seen a reliable list that has. Indeed, I would be surprised if a country named "Antigua and Barbuda" did not fully include Barbuda. If there is a reliable list found that does name them, of course there may have to be a reconsidering. At this point it seems like just the same word with different meanings, one of the many problems in the English language. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

So they're administrative divisions called dependencies. English, English, English. I guess I'll fix the two pages I noticed that called them dependencies. I'll put them as administrative divisions with a note that there officially called dependencies. Thanks for clearing this up. David815 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sovereign State Column in Dependency Section[edit]

I've noticed that the dependency section has no column for "Sovereign State". I think that (for the general reader) knowing the state ruling a dependency is certainly more important than knowing the dependency's currency. I'm not saying that the currency column should be removed, I'm just saying that if we're going to have something like that, we should certainly have a Sovereign State column. David815 (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Would a legal status section similar to the one in List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe#Dependent territories be a good solution? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, I'll start tonight! David815 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Areas and populations[edit]

The other such lists in Wikipedia--Europe, South America, etc.--have sortable columns for area and population. Is there some reason this one doesn't? In those articles, those lists are sortable--that is, you can click a symbol in their headers and rearrange the list by that criterion, lowest to highest or vice versa. (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza