Talk:List of countries

Template:WP1.0

Proposal for a new format of the list

I earlier raised the question of a new format for this page. There were no real objection to my proposal and the remarks made helped me improving that list. Before I replace the content, I want to inform you better. The new list can be found at User:Electionworld/List of countries. I feel quite responsible for the list, since (as you can see at the archived sections of this talk page), I made a lot of revisions in the old list, including the inclusions of a lot of entities.

• The present-day list leads to discussions on which there is no real agreement. The new list lists all UN members and the Vatican as countries and adds de facto countries (frozen conflicts), dependencies and special status regions as sub-items with the recognized countries. The new list doesn't say or deny that such an entity is a country. The de facto (want to be) countries and dependencies are clearly marked
• Palestine and the Sahrawi Republic have separate entries, since it is not generally recognized that their claimed territory (totally) belongs to Israel and Morocco. More or less the same goes for the Republic of China, which has limited de jure recognition, but has a lot of de facto relations. The other de facto countries are generally de jure recognized as being part of another country.
• The new list is formatted in a table and includes now the native official names.
• a col has been added to list the status of the item. Justification and other remarks are in the footnotes.
• Previous decisions on inclusion are respected. Only the entities in the old list are in the new list. But there is more info in the footnotes. E.g. in the footnote with Serbia there is a remark on Kosovo.
• The new introduction starts with a definition as being found in country and refers for more information to that article. The list itself is not the best place for discussions on what a country is.
• The inclusion section has been redrafted.

I would like to replace the content in a short time, but will wait some days to see if there are many objections. In the mean time I will continue to 'improve' the new list. Electionworld Talk? 07:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not better or worse than what exists now. It's prettier. The sub-entities need a level of indent though. Visually all the subs of the UK and USA run into each other with USA lost in the middle. SchmuckyTheCat

I added indents to make it more clear and working on the romanization in the table instead of in the notes Electionworld Talk? 10:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I raised a real objection (see Proposal for new structure: Which was: I think that you are rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic. This list should either become a redirect to List of sovereign states or a disambiguation page. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The section in your new list called "List of countries" seems to me to be a list of soverign states not a list of countries. For example Albania is a country but "Republic of Albania" is the name of a state (that you call "English version of the (longer) official names") not the name of a country. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This new proposal does not resolve the issue over the fact that England and Scotland are countries and only appear as a footnote along with Northern Ireland that arguably is not a country because along with the Republic of Ireland have territorial control of the the country of Ireland. If the new list is only "a sovereign territory, most commonly associated with the notions of state" then this page should redirect to list of sovereign states. As can be seen in the next section to date most of those who have expressed an opinion on the matter have suggested that this page becomes a redirect to that page. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. If notice the definition of country in country (an article I didn't write) , it is clear that it is related to sovereign areas. Scotland, England and Wales are not countries in that sense. I do not see why the Republic of Albania is not a country, I cannot see any reason for that in the article country. Electionworld Talk? 12:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Scotland is a country it is not a sovereign state. There are many meanings of the word country, you are using one of them. In which case why not redirect the page to the article [List of sovereign states] as that is what you are claiming the list is? --Philip Baird Shearer 17:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I once disagreed with a drive (by a politically-motivated individual) to rework the country article to reflect its multiple meanings and that it can refer to just about any political entity as per English dictionaries, because most of us will be aware that by common usage, "country" is usually taken to mean a fully-independent state. But it is obvious that whatever opinion I should have on that issue, both are clearly at odds with this list, as this list fails to conform to either definition. Just what purpose does this list serve then?--Huaiwei 12:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to follow the definition used in the article country. I still think the new list is at odds with that definition. Electionworld Talk? 13:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The country article makes it clear that there are many confusing meanings of the word and they do not even cover all the meanings in the OED. As the Wikipedia country article makes clear "The casual use of 'country', 'state' and 'nation' as synonyms leads to confusion. Confounding this is the often confused official use: for example, the United Nations is actually a body made of 'states'; and the countries constituting the United Kingdom are sometimes called the home nations." --Philip Baird Shearer 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So with that, I suppose we can start adding anything from Scotland to Tibet to Kurdistan? And also Aceh, Maine, London and Lagos! The term "country" according to Merriam-Webster goes something like "a: the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship b: a political state or nation or its territory"[1]. Who's stopping anyone from insisting that his backyard is his birthplace? Either we be consistent with our usage here, or we turn this page into a disampg page with a list of less-disputable terms...or even delete it.--Huaiwei 02:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe I raised a number of real objections to your list and even the country article noted that dependencies are listed together with states (it didn't say with their governing states) in lists of countries...as per this current list. Why reinvent the wheel? This list is a featured list (while the list of sovereign states isn't and the country article isn't a featured article, much less a "good" article). Besides if the purpose of this list is to only "list all UN members and the Vatican as countries and then add de facto countries (you even have to call them countries as you can't call them anything else), dependencies and special status regions as sub-items" (which can be interpreted as sub-units), how will this resolve the various "discussions on which there is no real agreement" that the current list supposedly generates? People will still clamour for some merger with list of states (especially if dependencies and so forth are sub-items) and if "The new list doesn't say or deny that such an entity is a country." (which by the way makes the new list ambiguous, since if the list is supposed to be a list of countries people will wonder why entities are on the list that aren't specifically defined as such (even by someone)). It will in fact be a whole lot easier for people to argue that since the sub-item entities are confirmed or denied to be countries then they should be removed for the simple reason that a list of countries should only have countries. The reason the current list generates debate is because a number of persons come to the page with the confused notion that "country=state=nation". But that is certainly not so. For instance, let me ask you this...was the French Empire a single country? Was the German colonial empire a single country? Was the British Empire a single country? If they were then dependencies should never be added to any list of countries in any capacity whatsoever (not even as sub-items). And if dependencies cannot be referred to as countries, then the term "independent country" is redundant and should be corrected in literature wherever possibly. Even the term state can be confusing as there are sovereign states (e.g. USA, UK, Germany) and non-sovereign states (e.g. Western Australia, South Carolina, etc). Thus as the word state can refer to both sovereign and non-sovereign entities the current name for the "List of states" has to be "List of sovereign states" as any other title would imply that all states should be listed. This list of countries is simply that: a list of all countries. It is not a "list of recognized and independent countries that are members or permanent observers of the UN" or a "list of dependent countries" or a "list of unrecognized countries" (that already exists ) or a "list of countries with disputed boundaries and legal status". It is simply a list of countries, and anyone coming to this list to argue otherwise is arguing based on their opinion not on what the title or the introduction actually says. As for those who would dispute the inclusion of those areas which are disputed, I would challenge them to go to the Cayman Islands or Somaliland and start asking which country they were in. I rather doubt the answers they would get would be "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or "Somalia". Dddly enough you never see any calls for the name of "list of unrecognized countries" to be changed or for that article to be deleted which means people coming here to call for the deletion of unrecognized countries from this master list of countries are either being hypocritical or do not know about the list of unrecognized countries.72.27.57.162 19:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete this list

See Talk:List_of_countries/Archive 1#Delete this list

To date refactoring and summarizing those who have expressed an opinion in the "Delete this list" section in the Archive:

Keep the page and the contents.

• This list defines its terms well. It is also a featured list, meaning it has been recognized as one of the best on Wikipedia. Lexicon (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• We're not claiming that these and only these entities are countries. It's just a Wikipedia list made for easier navigation. Alæxis¿question? 20:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• From what I rear only a few people want to delete this list, most want it to remain the same.-- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Electionworld did not express an opinion in this section but more recently said: I have noticed your opinion, but there doesn't seem to be much support for that. Electionworld Talk? 10:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC) and proposed; Proposal for new structure - limited to 'countries' and add per country information on dependencies etc. Electionworld Talk? 09:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• FWIW, per Lexicon and Alæxis. Quizimodo 10:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Make the list a redirect to list of sovereign states

• ...The concept of country has many meanings and is wide open to POV issues. I suggest that this list is deleted and the page is redirected to list of sovereign states. Philip Baird Shearer 14:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• I understand that this list of countries is just for help. Gosh! why do you keep a non-Encyclopedic page in the Encyclopedic space? --Juiced lemon 22:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC
• I also agree, a list of sovereign states would be far more helpful than one that synthesises a number of definitions in this manner. TewfikTalk 04:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• I agree too; this list is inherently original research. Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• I think I tend to agree with those who propose deletion. ... Perhaps someone should propose for deletion and see where we get to. DSuser 18:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Make the list a disambiguation page

• Instead of deleting this list, I would propose turning it into a disambiguation page and provide links to List of sovereign states, Dependent territory, List of unrecognized countries, List of extinct states, List of territorial autonomies, and List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement. --Huaiwei 15:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Huaiwei. But.. -Philip Baird Shearer 08:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that those who have been claiming that there is not much support for making this page a redirect, have not read the archive section in the same way as I have and I would be interested to hear their opinion. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Only five persons of the many people how edited the talk page since you raised the question agreed with a deletion/redirection. That is not sufficient and the persons who agreed did that because of what was called POV or OR issues. The new list I proposed is less open to POV issues and includes as far as I can see no OR. BTW, I can image that we merge the renewed List of countries and List of sovereign states als List of countries. Electionworld Talk? 12:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Six have expressed an opinion to trim this page. Only four have supported its retention. sovereign states has a precise meaning list of countries does not. If this is a list of countries why not include England and Scotland as they are countries although they are not sovereign states? --Philip Baird Shearer 17:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Many people kept on editing the article and though they did not express their opinion explicitely, they didn't support your proposal. Still England etc. doesn't comply to the definition in country. Electionworld Talk? 20:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is merely one way of looking at the situation here. The list remains highly volatile and is subject to constant edits, because few can agree on just what a country is. Even a lengthy introduction has failed to stem this exercise. England complies with the definition of the word Country, simply because it is officially designated as one.--Huaiwei 17:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The persons who suppor the deletion of this list and its redirecting to list of sovereign states must not seem to realize that what they are requesting is that a featured list, (which passed the criteria and obviously had the support of the persons voting for its featured status) be deleted and its page redirected to a list that has never been a featured list. In fact list of sovereign states is currently semi-protected (and has been for almost a week). I for one support the list of countries and think such proposals should only be followed if featured articles can be deleted and redirected to "Good", "A", "B", "Start" or "Stub" class articles.

Please read the archive, they do --Philip Baird Shearer 09:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As for arguments for and against England and Scotland being included, I would like to know how the proponents of their inclusion would define Wales and more importantly Northern Ireland. Because obviously one cannot include the United Kingdom as well as England and Scotland in any list of countries. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are alternatively termed as "constituent countries" or "home nations", however as the constituent country article notes, the term "constituent country" is not a term of art and has no defined legal meaning; "constituent" is simply an adjective, and the phrase (constituent country) has no clear meaning outside a context from which the entity or grouping of which the countries in question are constituents or components can be understood. So right away we see it has no legal basis and has no clear meaning outside of particular contexts. But more important is the use of the terms. In Northern Ireland, the term province is used in preference by the unionists and the nationalists consider the area to be part of the country of Ireland under British control. There is also the fact that "England Wales" is a legal entity, which makes it even more difficult since Wales has a legal basis as well (through its assembly), but England by itself does not. So taken on a legal basis Scotland and Wales could be termed countries but if they were then the UK couldn't and neither could England or "England and Wales" and based on the varying views of Northern Ireland it too would be an odd placement alongside Scotland. This would then lead to the odd situation of calling certain places countries which have legal basis, in treaty or self-government or having to leave them off the list, which would mean that a large populated place is left off of the list. People will argue that "oh wait, but Nagorno-Karabakh has no legal basis either" which will show that they are confusing international recognition with laws and self-government. Unrecognized countries, although unrecognized, still have laws and thus have de facto legal basis. I would dare anyone to go Nagorno-Karabakh and break one its laws and see if they can argue their way out of prison based on the Nagorno-Karabakh not having legal basis. If international recognition were the requirement for the validity of laws then laws of countries such as Israel, the Republic of China (Taiwan), the People's Republic of China, the Vatican City and Cyprus shouldn't be considered as having any real legal basis since those countries aren't recognized by every single other UN member in the world. What would be the difference between Israel not being recognized by over 20 states and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus being recognized by only 1 state? What is the criteria for a country being "recognized" or "unrecognized"? But none of this matters much anyway, because what people are forgetting is that the term "country" can also be used loosely as a subdivision. Take for example "Basque Country". This is a part of the country, nation and state of Spain, but nobody seriously considers adding it to the list of countries. If anything it has an even greater claim to being on the list than the constituent countries of the UK (which can be viewed in the same light as Basque country). If people want to start adding the constituent countries of countries themselves, we may as well starting add any tract of land with a name or maybe tracts of land without names, since any one of us can go off to the un-named "country" or "countryside" for the weekend.72.27.57.162 18:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The points you raise are why this should not be a self defining list. Just because England and Scotland are countries does not mean that the UK is not a country (two different meanings of the same word). Just because Scotland is in the list does not mean that the province of Ulster needs to be in the list, but there are arguments for including Ireland and not the state of the Republic of Ireland.

Also what about Black Country or "Shakespeare Country" or "Bronte Country" or the dozens of other places with brown signs pointing to them?

It is because of all the meanings of the word country that this list should made into either a redirect or into a disambiguation list --Philip Baird Shearer 09:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So then if this list is not to be defined in any manner...then I suppose it should be an open ended list? And likewise so should list of sovereign states becom list of states and include New South Wales and New York? As you said, just because England and Scotland are countries (in one sense of the word), doesn't mean the UK isn't a country. However, it does mean that when using one broad definition of "country", other senses of the word (and their examples), are quite naturally excluded. If this is to be a list of countries and not a list of some countries in the world or just a list of countries within the united kingdom then the exclusion of ulster would mean that the list isn't as comprehensive as it could be. As the list stands now, no area on earth that is permanently inhabitated is excluded. Listing Scotland, which would mean that Ulster couldn't be listed, would leave the question open as to which country ulster (with is 1 million+ people) belongs to and of course the answer is two: The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Arguments for including Ireland as opposed to the Republic of Ireland use the term nation and country interchangeably. There is an island of Ireland, throughout which the Irish nation lives. But the island of Ireland is divided between two separate countries and states. Just because Ireland is an island and also a nation doesn't make the entire island a country. Otherwise one would then be hardpressed to explain the difference between Ireland and New Guinea. New Guinea is an island divided between two countries (Indonesia and Papua New Guinea), but the native Papuans and Austronesians are found right across the island and the name Papua itself has long been associated with the island and used by both sides of the island. Other examples very similar to Ireland would include Samoa (divided between Samoa and American Samoa). There is a Samoan nation which inhabits the Samoan archipelago. But the Samoan archipelago is divided between two countries: The Independent State of Samoa (formerly Western Samoa) and American Samoa (which is an unincorporated territory/dependent territory belonging to the United States). And if Ireland (both Northern and the Republic) are included as one country, then why should the list have China and Taiwan as separate countries? or North and South Korea? In both those cases, each government claims the territory of the opposing government, unlike the Republic of Ireland which no longer claims Northern Ireland in its constitution and recognizes it as British (that doesn't mean the Republic won't work towards reunification - but that it simply recognizes the situation as it exists now). And to move even further, why include Germany and Austria as separate countries? Before German unification, the term "Germany" would have been used in the more loosely defined way as the "area inhabited by Germans" and it was only considered a "country" in this sense. At that time, it the term would have (at times) included Austria's German-speaking areas. As both German and Austria are both part of the German nation, why bother to have them listed as separate countries? Of course, today although Germans and Austrians share a common language and so forth, Austrians themselves have also developed a sense of nationhood and so form a separate nation from that of Germany. In a similar manner, Australia and the United Kingdom once shared the same nationality (British) but Australia gradually developed its own sense of nationhood and nationality. Even so the word "nation" isn't a hard and fast term (rather like "society").

You use the example of the Black Country to support the deletion of this list and turning it into a redirect or a disambiguation page. I don't know which redirect you would make it into, since the list of sovereign states is obviously a shorter list and would only continue the confusion between the terms "state", "country" and "nation" (and we shouldn't be encouraging that). I also don't see how this could become a disambiguation list, since such a list is basically a list of lists. For example any such page would have to include links to the list of unrecognized countries, but also a link to a list of generally recognized countries as well as list of dependent territories (considered to be countries as well) and list of "other" countries (countries which fall under the other senses of the word). Now under which list would the Black Country fall? "List of loosely defined areas called countries"? And even if a disambiguation list were required it would still have to link to a list pretty much like this one (otherwise what would be the point of a "list of a list of countries"? If anything the Black Country is a strong example of why there should be a country (disambiguation) page (which already exists). If that disambiguation page is inadequate because it lacks links to the various senses of the word country and to examples themselves, then it is the country (disambiguation) page which needs to be expanded upon, not this page. And why shouldn't this list have some defintion? Is there a wikipedia policy or guideline against definitions? Even list of sovereign states and list of unrecognized countries have definitions. A disambuiguation list would not remove the need for such definitions in those pages and the very reason for that is due to the way the terms are used. The fact that the titles of the pages are list of countries, list of sovereign states and lists of unrecognized countries reflects the most popular usage of these terms (even inhabitats of the Black Country would probably not expect to see it in a list of countries) since the primary sense of each of those words is used in the lists themselves. unlike terms such as cricket, pound and so forth which can be easily defined as cricket(sport) vs. cricket(insect) or pound(currency) vs. pound(mass), the term country cannot be so easily defined in article titles. For instance, in one word give the meaning of the sense in which "country" is used for the Black Country. Confusion over meaning in lists of elements by name doesn't lead a disambiguation page although technically by its title one could well expect classical elements and Chinese elements (such as air, water, wood and metal). The reason of course is that the main sense of the word element is chemical and to be sure the reader understands this there is a definition about the list in the list of elements by name page. Articles without introductions (even self-defining ones) are poorly written articles and shouldn't be emulated.72.27.57.162 23:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And likewise so should list of sovereign states become list of states and include New South Wales and New York? is a list of "sovereign states" not states. The issue of American states sovereignty was settled in the American Civil War, I am sure that an Australian would be able to explain if New South Wales is sovereign under the Australian constitution but I doubt it and it is not recognised as such by any sovereign state.

There are many meanings of country (this was talked about at the start of this thread: See The OED has 16 meanings for country), so I am not going to quibble with you over most of the points you raise, because they are arguments for turning this list either into a redirect that gained most support or as disambiguation page as Huaiwei suggested (and which I am happy with), and there already exists a lists of countries and Lists by country to cover some of your other points -- but I can not resist one, Munster, Leinster, Ulster and Connacht are the provinces of Ireland. Northern Ireland consists of only six of the nine counties of Ulster, so Northern Ireland is not a country it is part of a province. This is one thing that even Ian Paisley ("Ulster says no") would agree with.--Philip Baird Shearer 10:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The list is called list of sovereign states, but according to some views and in some legal theory sovereignty is shared between the United States as a whole and the individual states themselves. So at the very least, all 50 American states could have some claim to be included in that list...unless of course the list has clear definitions in the introduction about the sense in which the term "state" (and more specifically "sovereign state") is being used - which it does. The point was that people can virtually argue for the inclusion of most anything in any list or article where terms used in the titles have several meanings which cannot be summarized with the addition of a simple word in brackets. And it wasn't the issue of state sovereignty that was settled in the American Civil War, it was their ability to secede (and even then some people still think the states have such a right). Also, luckily, we are in 2007 and not 1987, because then it could very easily be argued that each Soviet republic belonged in the list of sovereign states since some (such as the Belorussian SSR and Ukrainian SSR) were actually signatories to the UN Treaty and since each republic was described as being both sovereign and always having the right to secede. What would have happened then? Nobody ever thought of the individual Soviet republics in the same sense as the USSR itself or other states around the world such as Italy at the same time. Likewise, why would one think of England and Scotland in the same sense as the United Kingdom and at the same time? And what does recognition have to do with sovereignty? Isn't it rather ironic that one state would need the approval of other states to be sovereign? It wouldn't really be sovereign would it? And if recognition is required then Cyprus, Israel, the People's Republic of China and the Vatican City would have to be removed from the list since they are not recognized by all UN members. Cyprus isn't recognized by 1 UN member (Turkey), Israel isn't recognized by 34 UN members and the People's Republic of China isn't recognized by 23 UN members and by the Vatican and The Vatican itself is only recognized by 176 countries which leaves 16 countries (assuming the countries referred to are all UN members) that do not recognize it. So according to the government of Pakistan, for example, there is no sovereign state of Israel, but if we go by that position alone then clearly wikipedia would become a sub-standard encyclopedia very quickly.

FYI The US states are not sovereign. See Supremacy Clause, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (art. 27), the ICJ LaGrand case (Case Concerning the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations) and the ICJ Press release for a summary. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI the Supremacy Clause (and all the other links you posted) have nothing to do with the shared sovereignty inherent the US federal system. It only deals with the sovereign powers delegated to the US federal government. It simply states the obvious: that the Constitution, laws made by the Federal government (that are constitutionally sound) and treaties signed and ratified by the Federal government (that also wouldn't conflict fundamentally with the constitution) shall be observed throughout all the states, regardless of their own laws. It doesn't say that the Federal government is supreme over every aspect of governance in the states or that powers not delegated to the US federal government by the Constitution are reserved specifically for the federal government. Nor does it say that if the Federal government makes a law or signs a treaty which violates the powers reserved for states or covers an area prohibited from the federal government by the constitution, that the law in question is supreme. US states have far more control over their own affairs than either Scotland or Wales and do exercise limited sovereignty. Note that it is limited. Limited by the Constitution and by Federal powers. But they do still exercise some sovereignty. And just so we are clear the definition of "sovereignty" is "the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself". If you look on only the Supremacy Clause then quite naturally one would assume that US states have no sovereignty whatsoever, but the Clause is only one part of the Constitution. And as should be made abundantly clear by the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people". This has the obvious implications that the US states (and/or American citizens) exercise the exclusive right of authority in areas of power not outlined in the US Constitution for the Federal government and not prohibited to the States. In any case, see US state, interstate compact and the introduction to Constitution of the United States, the Tenth Amendent and its history and State (country subdivision) (particular the first section on the US states). In no instance is the limited sovereignty of the various US states disputed (After all, did the US Constitution create a federal union of non-sovereign states?). of the various US states. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties you posted deals with areas of power that are expressly delegated by the Constitution to the US federal government (which means that they are redundant when arguing that US states don't have any form of sovereignty, since they only prove that the US federal government exercise sovereignty where it is permitted to by the US constitution - only the US government is allowed to sign international treaties and these treaties (once ratified) are binding on all authorities in the US, including the federal, state and local authorities). In the LaGrand case there was even further proof of this shared sovereignty as the US Supreme Court "lacked jurisdiction with respect to Germany's complaint against Arizona, due to the eleventh amendment of the U.S. constitution (which prohibits federal courts from hearing lawsuits of foreign states against a U.S. state)". If US states were not sovereign in any manner then the tenth and eleventh amendments would be meaningless and as the highest court of the land the US Supreme Court should have had jurisdiction over that case (and any case that could be appealed from a lower court). The fact that the US State Department, US goverment and US authorities/Arizona authorities violated the convention doesn't mean the convention made the supremacy clause more paramount than any other section of the constitution including the 10th and 11th amendments.72.27.57.162 20:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And how can most of the points I raise be arguments for turning this into a redirect or a disambiguation? You yourself said the OED has 16 meanings for the word country. And I'll ask you again, can any of those meanings be summarized in a single word that can be added in brackets? Seriously now. Otherwise how are you going to differentiate between any disambiguation and the other lists. And the points I raised were done in the expectation that if you or anyone else could answer them and raise points against them, then my points couldn't be used to oppose deletion - that has happened yet though. As for Ireland and Ulster, I was using Ulster because you referred to it first and obviously at the time in the sense of Northern Ireland as opposed to the whole of Ulster (see what terms with different meanings can do unless defined?). Munster, Leinster, Ulster and Connacht are provinces of Ireland, but if you read the Provinces of Ireland page you will realize that they have no legal status in Ireland today (and haven't for some time), but are simply used to refer to groups of counties. Thus they cannot be used as an argument for the whole of Ireland to be included as a country, since they are little better than terms for various regions on the island of Ireland. If using historical provinces is a basis for defining a country then we might as well include Taiwan and China as one country based on the administrative divisions they claim with regards to each other. The same would go for the two Koreas and I have yet to see any dissenting opinion for the inclusion of the two Koreas. Taken even further it could be an argument to include Belarus (White Russia or White Rus) and Ukraine (Little Russia) as part of the country of Russia. Or include the Russian far east as part of China by virtue of it being the northern section of Manchuria. And if there exists a lists of countries (which basically acts as the disambiguation page you were talking about) and various lists by country then what do you have against this page? You also may have noticed that many of the lists in the lists of countries page include the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and not England, Scotland and the island of Ireland. The lists of countries page also does not cover the Black Country, and nobody has yet demonstrated under what kind of list the Black Country is to be included (if it is even to be included in a list), since it isn't linked to by any of the lists in lists of countries (which itself, oddly enough, uses the term countries in the same context as this list).72.27.57.162 16:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

New format

It think we should close these discussions. There is not much support for the new layout, so I withdraw my proposal. There is also not much support for changing this featured list into something else (disambig or deletion) than it is now, so it should stay as it stands now. I think with the new template at the top, a kind of disbig has been realized. Maybe someone can start a list of entities referred to as countries, which would include every entity that fulfils any definition of country. Electionworld Talk? 13:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is astonishing to note that the increasing chorus of users supporting a complete revamp of this article to a disambig page, or outright deletion, is being ignored once again, despite convincing evidence compelled above which says otherwise. If this article continues to stay where it is and in its current state, the next most logical step is to reaccess its status as a featured list, for this site can hardly endorse an article who's final state has never been agreed upon.--Huaiwei 15:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Electionworld: there is little evidence of any sort of a consensus to support extreme changes like disambiguating this article, and deleting it would be a disservice to everyone. And far from disregarding those who disagree with the above: dissenters, if you will, can edit the article as much as anyone or compel for change on the talk page. Quizimodo 16:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As many people or more people who have expressed an opinion on the issue have suggested redirection or disambiguation, this is far more than have expressed support for rearranging the deckchairs on this sinking ship. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I withdrew the proposal to rearrange the deckchairs on this ship, since there was no overwhelming support. The proposal to change into a disambig lacked overwhelming support too. Electionworld Talk? 21:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW. I would mind that by way of compromize an annex in the article would be included listing countries according to other definitions. Electionworld Talk? 21:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice that it seems to be the same chorus, rather than an ever "increasing" and "overwhelming" chorus that supports redirecting the page or making it into a disambig. And by the way, which is it to be? Obviously a disambig and redirect cannot be the same thing so this supposed majority is actually artificial since it is constructed from persons wanting either a disambig or a redirect. If you all feel so strongly and feel that somehow your views are being trampled on then why not do as you suggest and ask for a review of the page's featured list status? And while you are at it why not have a vote on whether the page should remain or become a redirect or a disambiguation (with the latter two not being artificially lumped but counted separately). I also noticed that Philip Shearer (and none of the other's calling for redirect or disambig) has not adequately responded to any of the numerous questions I raised surrounded disambiguation or redirection. I have challenged the assumptions surrounding the ideas and the only significant response was to claim that the challenges supported redirection or disambiguation without explaining how. Electionworld's idea was a pretty good one from an aesthetic point of view, although its implementation isn't pressing, because all it would essentially do is reorganize the countries listed (and why reinvent the wheel?). I have seen a proposal for deleting a featured list (a Commonwealth of Nations list) in favour of a new wikitable sortable list. Now that proposal would have been vastly different in that it basically incorporated about 3 lists into one and allowed users to sort the list by various categories. Now if Electionworld were to come up with a sortable list of countries based on alphabetically order, sovereignty or lack thereof and international recognition or lack thereof, then I would definitely support such a list. That way one could sort the list so it appeared as it does now or in the format Electionworld had been proposing or in another format entirely. However, it might be a rather challenging list to make. I like Electionworld's idea of an annex in the article containing those areas considered countries under other definitions, at least he's taking shot at making the article better and addressing the concerns of all involved instead of claiming majority rule and clamouring for disambiguation (which is essentially putting the cart before the horse - which set of lists would it disambiguate to? At the very least such a disambig is going to have to lead to a list rather similar to this one already) or redirecting (which is asking for people to assume that country = state; which it doesn't - and that is especially bewildering since it was already pointed out that country has 16 definitions in the OED and I'm sure in the OED it doesn't say "see state" under the country entry). I'll be willing to help Electionworld with such an annex if he's interested. I would caution against including historical countries (e.g. Yugoslavia) as opposed to traditional or sub-state countries (e.g. Basque Country or Scotland), since historical countries will lead to a very long list (just imagine all the old countries that made up the German Confederation for instance).72.27.77.42 00:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This list would look like the section below.

Present-day countries according to other definitions

See previous section for explanation

This list includes entities of which a substantial part of the population would refer it to as their country (or nation). (sentence can be improved)

• Aceh
  • Part of Indonesia, referred to as country by pro-autonomy groups, the official name Nanggröe Aceh Darussalam means Welfare and Peace Aceh Country.
• Basque Country
  • Part of Spain and France, referred to as historical nation in the Spanish constitution.
• Bougainville
  • Part of Papua New Guinea
• Catalonia
  • Part of Spain and France, referred to as historical nation in the Spanish constitution
• Chechnya
  • Part of Russia
• Crimea
  • Part of Ukraine
• East Turkestan, East Turkestan
  • Part of the People's Republic of China
• England
  • Constituent country of the United Kingdom
• Flanders
  • Part of Belgium, referred to as country (land) by Flemish nationalists
• Galicia
  • Part of Spain
• Kashmir
  • Divided between India, Pakistan and the People's Republic of China
• Korea
  • Divided in South Korea and North Korea
• Kosovo
  • Part of Serbia
• Kurdistan
  • Divided between Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria
• Northern Ireland
  • Constituent country of the United Kingdom
• Quebec
  • part of Canada, referred to as nation by the Canadian parliament and as country (pays) by separatists
• Republika Srpska
  • Part of Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Scotland
  • Constituent country of the United Kingdom
• Southern Sudan
  • Part of Sudan
• Tamil Eelam
  • Part of Sri Lanka
• Tatarstan
  • Part of Russia
• Tibet
  • Part of the People's Republic of China
• Wales
• Constituent country of the United Kingdom
• West Papua
  • Part of Indonesia
• Zanzibar
  • Part of Tanzania

I propose first to fill this list and than add it to the article. Electionworld Talk? 09:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to have subsections like these, you might as well have subsections for fully independent states recognised by the UN, de facto independent states with limited recognition, entities with special status according to the UN, or even dependent states with no formal recognition of independence. That just sounds like a disamg list in expanded style, but heck, perhaps that the only way forward if you want to isolate disputes to certain sections of the article instead of subjecting the entire list to constant disputes?--Huaiwei 09:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are Tatarstan and Chechnya singled out? While they probably have more autonomy than most of other Russia's republics their official status doesn't differ from that of Sakha or Chuvashia... See this list. Alæxis_¿question? 13:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Btw the same thing happened to Spain. Again Catalonia and Euskadi are the regions that have most autonomy, however they are officially called autonomous communities, just like Galicia, Valencia or Andalucia. Alæxis_¿question? 13:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe relevant entries should probably be added under the legitimate country: e.g., England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland double indented under the United Kingdom. Mind you, I'm also fine with maintaining the status quo.

So am I... Alæxis_¿question? 15:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

One comment regarding the Canadian province of Quebec, though: it or its people (Québécois), in whole or in part, are sometimes referred to as a nation (notably in a motion passed by the federal parliament last year), but it is generally not referred to as either a country or a state. Therefore, it (and perhaps other entities) should be excluded. Quizimodo 15:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Huaiwei that such a section might be the "only way forward if you want to isolate disputes to certain sections of the article instead of subjecting the entire list to constant disputes". I don't think other subsections are necessary since the whole point of the formatting is to separately show generally recognized and independent states, unrecognized countries and dependencies. Of course, if the list were a sortable table now, then it could be sorted either alphabetically, regionally or by the categories of independence and recognition. I think the list is a good start and with a more proper opening sentence it should be able to inform readers that the entities listed are also considered countries but not in the same sense as in the main list i.e. these are areas which are not artificial structures (like Sealand), that do not claim to be totally separate entities (like the unrecognized countries do) and nor are they recognized as being separate from the controlling state/country (as the various dependencies are - both by the controlling states such as the USA and UK and by the rest of the world in general). After all the governments controlling the territories of the Basque Country or Scotland do not claim independence (unlike Northern Cyprus) and they do recognize their areas to be a part of a country (Spain and the United Kingdom respectively) (unlike the Cayman Islands which doesn't consider itself to be a part of the UK). It would also have to be noted that the term "country" isn't always used regularly to refer to some of the entities, for instance the constituent countries of the UK are also called the Home Nations. Not sure about Quebec's inclusion. It is considered a separate nation and a number of people in the province would like it to become a separate country....but I've never heard of it being referred to as a country.72.27.77.42 16:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion here makes it for me clear that it is not possible to make a good annex. Therefore, I do not longer think it is a good idea to add this annex. Electionworld Talk? 20:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? Nobody so far has disagreed with the annex, only with the inclusion of a couple entities. Alaexis wondered about Tatarstan, Chechnya and Catalonia, but in reply to his queries: Tatarstan and Chechnya did declare themselves to be separate from the Russia during the dissolution of the USSR and while Tatarstan worked out an agreement with Russia (such that it remains a part of Russia but with substantial autonomy - more than Sakha I believe), Chechnya didn't. It did agree to being a part of Russia until a referendum could be held (it never was) and so, as Electionworld said in the opening sentence, parts of the population consider Chechnya a country (although the majority right now, probably just don't care who's in control as long as they can live their lives peaceably). Catalonia was compared to Valencia, but Valencia is also referred to as Valencian country sometimes rather like the Basque country, even though it's official name is the Valencian community. The annex seems like a good idea, it should probably just be limited to areas that are or have been called a "country" at some point, such as the constituent countries, Basque country, Valencia, Tamil Eelam (which is considered a country by the Tamil Tigers who do control some territory), Flanders, and so on and leave out areas like Quebec. I think the point is to include entities which are called countries but do not necessarily fit in with the countries in the main list since they are actually parts of the countries in the list.72.27.77.42 02:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you've missed my point regarding Spain. All the parts of Spain are called autonomous communities. They all have varying degree of autonomy and for us to draw a line somewhere would be WP:OR and illogical. I'm also not sure that the word country is applied often to Valencian Community or Catalonia.

Do you have statistics regarding the number of people considering their republic a country for Tatarstan, Chechnya and all other Russian republics? While Tatarstan (maybe) and Chechnya were sometimes called countries at some periods in 90s what does it have to do with current situation? Alæxis_¿question? 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now about Spain. I don't think the word "country" has been applied to Catalonia, but Valencia has definitely been called country at times. Your also right regarding Tatarstan and Chechnya, though I thought their inclusion in such an annex, like that of England, Scotland and Kosovo would be a good comprise over the seemingly endless recurring issues of their inclusion in the main list. Perhaps if it is to be done at all, it should be simply limited to those areas that are specifically labelled as countries (especially in some documents that can be used for verification) such as England, Scotland, Basque Country and Valencia. And maybe Tamil Eelam, though if that is too iffy then it would just be left out.72.27.77.42 16:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember any discussions over the inclusion of Chechnya or Tatarstan lately so I think that some kind of consensus has already been reached about it. Alæxis_¿question? 17:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Even better. But the issue of England and Scotland do keep arising in some form or another (either as a direct question or as a some demonstration that the list should be deleted).72.27.77.42 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose that only entities should be listed with a ref for the source where the entity is referred to as country or nation or when it is self evident (e.g. Korea). Electionworld Talk? 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So does this mean you would still be willing to do the second annex? Don't think we should include entities referenced as nations but never referenced as countries though. Some would take this to the extreme and claim that all of Ireland or all of China should be included in the main list instead of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom or the PRC and ROC.72.27.77.42 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I grow increasingly wary of the utility and authority of the proposed annex/list: if it is to list countries, we should not be entertaining the listing of nations or like entities. Each of these terms -- country, nation, state -- may be interchangeable in general parlance, but an encyclopedia must be clearer and more authoritative. Any entries in such a list must be well sourced: for example, the subunits (constituent countries) of the UK.[2] [3] Otherwise, such a list would cater to 'nationalist' editors from Sealand to Tipperary, or others with an agenda. Arguably, It may constitute original research anyway.

And, to iterate: Quebec -- a province of Canada -- should not be included. The Canadian (federal) parliament passed a motion that Québécois form a nation, not Quebec itself. And, of course, separatists believe Quebec is or should be a country: otherwise, they wouldn't be separatists. (Of course, this position is more nuanced than that). Quizimodo 04:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Other

Why is Sealand being removed? Themusicgod1 06:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Micronations need not apply See here and here. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

agree. Electionworld Talk? 07:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was the complete template removed? Electionworld Talk? 07:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Complete? It was dated several months ago, and it implies some kind of continuum that can be complete (e.g. List of all U.S. presidents until today or List of all ABA basketball players), whereas a list of countries is not complete per se anymore than any other list of anything. I personally think it's silly, especially since having a date from May in August actually implies that the list is outdated, which is counter-intuitive at best and deceptive at worst. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 07:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK Electionworld Talk? 11:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And Tamil Eelam?

Tamil Eelam is a de facto state (like Somaliland or South Ossetia). The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) currently administers some of the land claimed for Tamil Eelam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.42.227 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are any sources calling these territories 'de facto independent', 'de facto state', 'unrecognised country' or something like that please bring them and then Tamil Eelam will also be included. Alæxis_¿question? 16:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2003041204820100.htm&date=2003/04/12/&prd=th&

http://www.hindu.com/2006/04/21/stories/2006042101621000.htm

http://www.tamilnation.org/tamileelam/defacto/index.htm

http://69.94.47.118/page.php?cat=122&id=689

http://www.eelam.com/tamil_eelam.html

These are hardly neutral sources - they all seem to be pro-Tamil. I'm sure pro-Sri Lankan sources say exactly the opposite, so we shouldn't use any of them here. You may want to look at the references proving the de facto independence of Abkhazia and Transnistria. Alæxis_¿question? 19:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they are surely the most well organized rebel army in the world. In north Sri Lanka they have their own gouvernment, laws, courthouses, taxes, and their police and army are the only present in the area. There is even a clear border with the rest of the country with custom officers in every check point.

Joe McElhiney?

1 political entity recognized by all UN members, but not by Joe McElhiney, (East Timor)

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sad mouse (talk • contribs) 18:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just vandalism that managed to get in. KTC 22:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Montevideo Convention

Hello, I'm certain these points have been made previously, but it seems that at least one of the "unrecognised states" fails the set criteria of the Montevideo Convention. While the case could be made that the Sahrawi Republic has minimal sovereignty on some territory, the State of Palestine doesn't have any sovereignty, nor did it ever have any (having been declared in 1988 in Algeria according to its entry). Thus it certainly doesn't have any population nor any defined territory. Whether some government ever existed or whether it can enter into diplomatic relations is slightly more complicated, but any such institutions or relations have already been superseded by the Palestinian National Authority. Regardless, that it fails the first two points seems clear to me - am I missing something? Tewfik^Talk 16:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You might be right, I am not sure, but since it is a widespread recognized entity, it belongs in the list. I created a separate category. Electionworld Talk? 17:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The widespread recognition was of a declaration, not of any sovereignty, borders etc. The entity is a UN observer, and so I added it in that section of annex to the list of countries‎, but I'm not sure that that alone would qualify it to be included here. Is there a definition other than Montevideo which would include it? Tewfik^Talk 19:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted to Tewfik's version, to remove the proposed State of Palestine from this list. I agree with Tewfik's point about the Montevideo Convention, but I don't think moving this item out of the Montevideo Convention category resolves the problem. The article is defining a state based on the "precedent of the Montevideo convention", which is original research in and of itself, but let's leave that aside for the moment. The Montevideo Convention says that statehood is independent of recognition by other states. Therefore, if we say that these eight entities are "states" under the Montevideo Convention, but this other entity is a state based on recognition, then the list would be based on self-contradictory rationales. Unfortunately, what this really means is that the whole list is original research. How this ever became a featured list, I do not know. But let's deal with one problem at a time. If we are following a particular definition of state in this article, then we should stick with the definition, and the State of Palestine is out. A number of other entities probably should be removed as well. 6SJ7 21:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How is having this list OR?? You define a criteria for inclusion (which is what is disputed here), and then you add item that fit those criteria and cite source that justify those inclusion. We have different list for the different inclusion criteria, and this one is what it is. This list was made FL when it was submitted because it's "useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed". KTC 13:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal. Please note the Montevideo Convention bit is one section of the general list inclusion criteria, not the only criteria. Right at the top we have "listing countries in the sense of independent states (both those that are internationally recognized and generally unrecognized), inhabited dependent territories, and areas of special sovereignty". Palestine should be included because it is widely recognized. It have diplomatic dealings with many, including UN itself [4]. It's hard for anyone to say it doesn't have territorial sovereignty, when major countries and international body deal with it in the sense that it does, including having sanctions against it. KTC 13:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think if you read the State of Palestine entry, as well as the Palestine entry, you will see that no one, especially not the Palestinians, claims that there is an independent or sovereign Palestinian State, recognised or otherwise (including in the article you cited). Sanctions and such are applied to the Palestinian National Authority. The only actual function of the "State of Palestine" is to be an observer at the UN, but that representation was de factopart of the Palestine Liberation Organisation until the creation of the successor PNA, and has since functioned as its representation, with the exclusion of the recent Gaza Strip government. Perhaps it would be best if you just take a look at the Definitions of Palestine and Palestinians - this topic is unfortunately both a complex and controversial one, but I do hope that you'll take the time to review the relevant entries. Tewfik^Talk 10:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying the Format

In the current format, the list shows UN short name - long name (status)? This should be explicited. "Burma", "Ivory Coast" are former names? Then what represent the names Timor-Leste, Pridnestrovie, Western Sahara? neither the formal nor the informal names.--Connection 01:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just alternative names used in English Electionworld Talk? 18:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. Wouldn't they need a disgnation, I mean like column headers: Formal name, Short name, old designation, proclaimed, alternative (or common, popular) name?--Connection 10:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I got very confused with the present naming criteria of this list. Contrary to what Electionworld said, the short-form names on this list do not strictly follow the names of the country entries. Examples include "Democratic Republic of the Congo vs Congo", "Republic of the Congo vs Congo", "Republic of Ireland vs Ireland", "Macau vs Macao" and "Republic of China vs Taiwan". It seems the adoption of these short-form names is just based on the preference of Wikipedians but doesn't reflect the political/legal adopted names, esp those widely used by UN and the international community. It's obvious that the name "East Timor" has become historical following the creation of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste. The "new" name Timor-Leste is the official name of this state registered with UN. It has nothing to do with whether the term is English or not. The use of the "new" name by the general public is just a matter of time. As I said, the same standard as "Côte d'Ivoire vs Ivory Coast" and "Myanmar vs Burma" should be strictly and universally applied. Otherwise, there shall be no grounds to defend against claims like "Ghana vs Gold Coast", "Tuvalu vs Ellice Islands", "Iran vs Persia", "Vanuatu vs New Hebrides", etc. --DD Ting 03:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's hear for some more opinions. Electionworld Talk? 23:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the case of China and Taiwan are perfect examples of the naming convention not being followed. The common English name for China is "China" and the common English name for Taiwan is "Taiwan". And if you don't believe me, ask yourself if you were honestly confused about which countries I meant when I said "China" and "Taiwan". On the other hand, how many English speakers would immediately recognize the "Republic of China" as a small country where Beijing is not the capital?

As for East Timor, it may be that in the near future "Timor-Leste" will be the common English name. Has that near future arrived yet? Readin (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification is needed, particularly regarding the naming of Taiwan and China. Someone made a comment in one of their edits that a consensus had been reached, but I don't seen any sign of it here. What is the reasoning for treating those two countries so differently from all the other countries? Readin (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph says we "include both an English version of the short official or normative names". In the case of Taiwan, the government has been using the name "Taiwan" for purposes such as printing on passports and application to join the UN. The normative name even according to the ROC government is Taiwan and although the official name may still be "China", it is no longer used. In this case, due to widespread usage including official government usage, and to avoid confusion with a the PRC which is referred to both commonly and officially as "China", the normative name "Taiwan" is preferred for a list of countries (but perhaps not for a list of states).Readin (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about source of long names. In the general info comment it is said: "The new list is formatted in a table and includes now the native official names." Does that mean that the long name (not common name) is the formal name that a country calls itself, (usually) translated into English? Not getting into the national state versus country definition debate, I'm looking for a valid list of long names, so I expect that some form of governmental entity defines this full official name. What sources do you use to validate? I realize that we should not use wikipedia for primary sources, however this is a highly vetted and highly rated (and I think really great) page and, if I could back it up with primary sources, i.e., the countries' own government websites or other defined sources, then this is a defensible source for the context I am trying to use it for. Ktkeller (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

KEY

Why is there no key? Nowhere in the article is it explained bluntly why some countries are in bold and/or italics on the list. Please clarify Thedreamdied 19:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is the EU not included?

Many people have argued for the inclusion of the European Union in various ranked lists of countries (e.g. List of countries by population) because it has country-like characteristics. Why then is the EU not included in this list if it is so country-like? Except for the EU, all of the entries in any of the ranked country lists can also be found in List of countries. Wikipedia should be consistent in this. Either include the EU in "List of countries" or remove it from all lists that are just rankings of the entries here. Which would be the more optimal solution? --Polaron | Talk 00:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The fine but important difference is, that this one here is a list of classical recognized countries and territories. The country rankings include data and list already not sovereign countries, states, territories. Also, the EU entry is in no list fully integrated, it always remains unranked. This is the most convincing solution for the current political/ economical status of the EU. The EU can not be declared a sovereign country and should´nt be ranked therefore. On the other side it has developed a too significant degree of country-like characteristics to be not included (Country lists including data). Lear 21 (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

None of the entries in those other lists are not also on those lists (except for the EU). Note that this list includes self-governing dependent territories and areas of special sovereignty. Your argument does not hold. --Polaron | Talk 03:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Several arguments have been stated. Lear 21 (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why not simply include it here? --Polaron | Talk 04:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In this list you only have the option IN or OUT. PLUS or MINUS. You can´t add an 'unranked' but still included entry like in the other lists. And in this case the EU is not a country. Lear 21 (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain why something that is not in List of countries should be included in a ranked list of countries. This list has a very inclusive definition of "country". Is the EU a country or not? Then its inclusion in an ordere list of countries will follow the answer to that question. Its inclusion in ranked lists of countries is being justified by it being so country-like. So why not simply include it here and end the debate? --Polaron | Talk 13:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Rereading the decision here: CIA World Fact Book: Preliminary statement on EU entry you rather convinced me to include the entry here as well. Go for it. Lear 21 (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Even more significant: The EU´s supranationality can be based upon the independence of the EC (e.g. independence - Art 7 TEC, majority decisions - Art 251 TEC) and the common binding legal framework (e.g. immediate validity - ECR 26/62 Van Gend & Loos, primacy of community law - ECR C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich). Lear 21 (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know where it is stated that lists of countries cannot make note of entities that are not appearing in the list of countries article. It would indeed be inconsistent to include something in a list of countries that is not listed here but merely noting it in someway outside of the list is perfectly consistent.Zebulin (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to the main point. This is from Annex to the list of countries

"==Entities not included==

• Confederations and international / intergovernmental organizations which are associations of countries."

Zebulin (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Argument on EC as independent and sovereign remains. @Zebulin:where is your position? You seem to keep reverting without answering the significant arguments. On "==Entities not included==" : this can be altered. Lear 21 (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The EU should be included. The EC already has sovereignty as a legal entity, and this will be extended to the entire Union in 2009 when the Reform Treaty is pushed through. Further, the weight and reach of the Union means that its power is far in excess of the vast majority of the world's states. Imperium Europeum (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say either we include the EU (the only supranational organisation currently existing), or we amend the Annex to state "Confederations, supranational unions and international / intergovernmental organizations" instead. —Nightstallion 13:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer is simple, it is not a country so it is not included. This is a list of COUNTRIES, so let's keep it that way. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The day it becomes a country and is recognized by the international community (It will never happen) then you can add it to the list, but until then leave the list alone. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Beep, wrong -- we've got other states on the list which are not recognised by anyone as independent. —Nightstallion 09:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but at least they identify themselves as countries, the EU does not. It is not a country, plain and simple. This is a LIST OF COUNTRIES, not "Supernational organiztions with nation like characteristics". I don't care if it is "Almost a country", "similar to a country", or has "characteristics of a country", it is not a country. The day it calls itself a country is the day you can put it on here, but until then it does not belong on this list. I understand it being on other lists for "comparative purposes", but there is no need for that here. And even if you people reach a "consensus" and add the EU to the list regardless of the fact that it is inaccurate, it still will not change the fact that the EU is not a country. And if the scenario I discribed above happens I will report all of you to an admin for adding false information to an article. I know what you pro-EU editors do to get what you want, you all gang up on other users and reach poor "consensuses" and write "See talk" whenever a person tries to add accurate information. Well that is NOT going to happen on this article because the EU is not a country, doesn't discribe itself as a country, nor is it recognized as a country by any country/organization. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Also the EU is on the articles International organization and Supranational union, which would contradict it being a country. Please tell me, how on earth can you be an INTERNATIONAL organization and a SUPERNATIONAL union and be a country all at the same time? Well the answer is simple, you can't. The EU doesn't deserve so much as a mention on this page since it is not a country, and this pagee is list of countries. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Because of the hybrid structure the EU is a supranational state/country and can be therefore included here. The argument on the EC (part of EU) as independent and sovereign remains. Half of the entries here have not developed the level of policies or institutions like the EU. A 'country'/state combines many hundreds aspects to be called as one. The EU fulfills the requirements. Lear 21 (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't, nor does it call itself a country either. The EU is not a country, so get it off the list. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also if you look at the external link provided at the bottom it even says very clearly that the EU is not a country [5]. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that on the European Union article it doesn't say the EU is a country either. I can and will pull up dozens of scources saying that the EU is not a country. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of Daniel's comments left me wondering: entities like Hong Kong don't exactly call themselves a country either, yet exists in this list because of "almost a country", "similar to a country" or "characteristics of a country" factors. I am sure there are a few others which exhibits similar characteristics. Just where do we draw a line? And are we the authority to draw this line in the first place?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong and the EU One potentially germane distinction is that the EU is composed of countries and neither Hong Kong nor the PRC are - they are entities of their own, even though the latter includes the former as a constituent part. I suppose that entities composed entirely of states (or countries) would be excluded from a list of counties (e.g. the African Union, World Trade Organisation, NATO, etc.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 08:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

By that definition, the United States (with its 50 states) and the United Kingdom (with its 4 countries) should be removed from this list, along with a few others.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? I've never heard of Alabama referred to as a country. The names "state" and "(home) country" are clearly idiosyncratic to the US and UK; Alaska is not a state, nor is England a "country" independent of the UK (it doesn't even have a government.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 09:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, why not? Check up a dictionary on the meaning of the word "country" and you might be surprised. "States" are not that peculiar to the United States. Check out the states of Malaysia, Tanzania, etc. If England is not independent of the UK, is the UK independent of the EU? And if the lack of government in England is an issue, how about those who do have one? What about the governments of Hong Kong and Macau, for instance?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. states were indeed considered independent and part of a federation at the time of the founding, but the Civil War pretty much ended that idea. When a state is no longer free to leave a group it has joined, that state no longer has sovereignty. I'm pretty sure EU members can quit the EU without EU approval. U.S. states cannot quit the USA without US approval.Readin (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales?

Is this correct? Great Britain already includes Scotland and Wales and according to the UK article, the title is simply "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" Savager (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been reverted. KTC (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So Aruba and Netherlands Antilles (constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands), and Faroe Islands and Greenland (constituent countries of the Kingdom of Denmark) are included, but England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (constituent countries of the United Kingdom) are not included. Anyone wish to argue for the consistency of this approach? Kevin McE (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really, since the "consituent countries" that you mention for the Kingdoms of the Netherlands and Denmark are autonomous areas within the Kingdoms. England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are not autonomous. Also the former countries are overseas, compared the Kingdoms, while the latter ones are at the center of the kingdom. --Paploo (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So what of the devolved autonomy of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which are self governing in many issues? I cannot see that geographical separtion can be the determining factor: this is about political status. Any definition of any of the four entities will use the word country: it seems obtuse to exclude countries from a list of countries. Kevin McE (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively in the past. Look there for some of the arguments. Alæxis_¿question? 10:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussed - yes. Concluded - no! Of course Kevin McE is absolutely correct. To have a 'List of Countries' from which certain 'countries' are omitted is simply nonsense. I am English, and my country is England. I am an Englishman. This is fact. For my country NOT to be on this 'List of Countries' is simply crazy. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

British particularism In the idiosyncratic language of the UK, yes, England is a "country," but it is clearly just a constituent part of the UK. I would not call Indiana my country, nor should England be considered a "country" in the way it is being used here. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You are comparing apples and oranges here. The American states are not in the same position as the constituent countries of the UK. It could be argued that the situation of Northern Ireland is similar, but not that of the three countries, England, Scotland, and Wales.Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 20:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay Insert "Tanzania" instead of "Indiana." I think you understand what I'm saying: regardless of the cultural heritage, they are constituent parts of a single state - one which was unitary until about a decade ago, as a matter of fact. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Errr, Tanzania is on the list. Kevin McE (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

How can you compare England to a state? England had one of the worlds largest empires, I dont think indiana ever did much for anyone. The fact that there are governments for each of these countries doesnt seem to have been taken on board by the writer of this list. United Kingdom is a collection of countries and not a nation unto itself. It has also come to my attention that the Falkland islands has been given an independant place on the list when it is infact a part of the UK, this is even attached in brackets after the country. therefore how can it be that England Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland do not get recognition in the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niall Freeman86.20.100.94 (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Falkland islands are an external dependency of the UK while England is an integral part of the UK. This is a list based on political status, and not on popular use of the word "country." You could include England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on this list, but you'd have to change the criteria of the list. Do you include Tibet, then? French Guyana? Quebec? Southern Sudan? Basque Country? What makes a subnational division a country and not just a province? It's too much. There needs to be some concrete dividing line between what's on the list and what's off it, and the current one we have is the only one I can see working. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We have talked this through before. See Talk:List of countries/Archive 1#Scotland and Talk:List of countries/Archive 1#Delete this list. The United Kingdom is a sovereign state. States belong to the EU and the UN not countries. States possess territory which may or may not be a country. Nations usually inhabit a country eg the English inhabit England. Scotland is a country and it is inhabited by Scots. Ireland is one country, but divide and is governed by two sovereign states. This page should become either a disambiguation page or a redirect to list of sovereign states. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Gaza and West Bank

Shouldn't Gaza and West Bank be included in this list? --Nadir D Steinmetz 16:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestine is included, as a special entity recognized by international treaty or agreement: the regions you mention are constituent parts of that entity. Kevin McE (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

But can I put like, for example, in the G section, "For Gaza see Palestine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idontknow610 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Chile's Special Territories

From what I understand, Easter Island and the the Juan Fernandez Islands were recently classified as "special territories" of Chile. Should they be added to this list? Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I see somebody has now added these. The individual articles still describe both as being part of the Region of Valparaiso, as does the article for that region. So either the articles are out of date, or these islands should not be on the list. If no sourced info in two days, reversion would appear to be in order. Kevin McE (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If I understand this source from the Juan Fernandez page correctly [6], they've been designated as special territories, but they're still being governed as part of Valparaiso until they get their own local charters. Does that warrant inclusion on this list and Dependent territory and so forth? I'm honestly not sure. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm: "special" is very wide in potential meaning. I would suggest that it requires more than intervening seawater to make something an overseas territory: the thresh-hold is presumably a degree of self government much more far reaching than that of the mainland regions. The document you refer to seems to say (I have decent conversational Spanish, but am slightly out of my depth in technical legal language) seems to suggest that they will largely remain under the same legal framework as the rest of the country: los territorios especiales de Isla de Pascua y Archipiélago Juan Fernández continuarán rigiéndose por las normas comunes en materia de división político-administrativa y de gobierno y administración interior del Estado seems to me to approximate to The special territories of Easter Island and The Juan Fernández Archipelago will continue to be directed by the common norms in place in issues of political-administrative division and internal governance and administration of the state. That, and the fact that the website of the Ministry for the Interior still considers these part of Valparaíso, would lead me toward concluding that they should not be on this list, but I would be very happy to see a more authoritative translation and explanation. I'll put a note at WP:CHILE. Kevin McE (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC

if you speack to anyone who lives on Rapa Nui (Easter Island) none of them want to be assotiated with Chile, and still class themselves as a seperate country.. Scousermartin (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Merged

I've merged Annex to the list of countries here, per discussion at Talk:Annex to the list of countries, and that page being totally subsidiary to this one.--Pharos (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Puntland and Maakhir

It is not clear to me why Somaliland is included, but Puntland and Maakhir are not.

Puntland's government has long considered itself an autonomous state, and Maakhir made a similar declaration in 2007.

Perhaps at least some mention of them is merited in the "Not included" list, with an explanation.

Ordinary Person (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

British Indian Ocean Territory and Pitcairn

British Indian Ocean Territory is excluded on the grounds that it is a "dependent territory without indigenous inhabitation.

Okay. So why is Pitcairn Is included? It was uninhabited until settled in modern times.

What sense of "indigenous" is in use here?

Ordinary Person (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Every island on the planet was unpopulated until humans arrived on it, and the same can be said of every land mass other than the place of origin of the human species (let's not get into that debate). Pitcairn therefore only differs in timescale. BIOT has had no "indigenous" population since the removal of the Chagossians (as I understand it: if there are non-military service personnel there, and remaining through multiple generations, I am happy to retract) in that the transient population of a military base do not have their origins and family roots there, do not consider it their homeland, do not derive a common nationhood from that place. Kevin McE (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would it be better to say it has no permanent inhabitants?

Ordinary Person (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

convert to table

it would be useful to convert this list into a table sortable by column, along the lines of

flag	ISO	name	official name	status	government	capital	continent	area (km²)	population (M)	HDI	GDP (G$)
		Abkhazia	Republic of Abkhazia	unrecognized, de-facto independent	republic	Sukhumi	Europe	8,432	0.18
	AFG	Afghanistan	Islamic Republic of Afghanistan	independent	republic, presidential	Kabul	Asia	647,500	31.89	0.229	8.8
	ALB	Albania	Republic of Albania	independent	republic, parliamentary	Tirana	Europe	28,748	3.60	0.801	21.2

In this way, several of the lists of countries (List of countries by population etc.) could conveniently be rolled into one. dab (𒁳) 15:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a good idea, I'm surprised that nobody commented it in nearly 4 months. There could however be display problems on small screens (or turned vertically as an A4 portrait). Maybe should some columns be abandoned or replaced by abbreviations, such as status, government and continent (not so many options in these). On the other hand, the ISO column could advantageously display the 1st level domain name too. Clpda (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Kosovo -- Recognition in days?

1 state, recognized by 42 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan)[2] and expecting further but ultimately limited recognition in coming days, the Republic of Kosovo.[3]

It has now been several months since the Republic of Kosovo was declared. Is the situation really likely to change in days, or is it months? And this should probably have an as of date, too. --196.210.152.31 (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Burma

Not a matter of personal preference As long as the main article is at Burma and not Myanmar, this should probably be listed as such. Also, it is listed as "Burma" at List of sovereign states. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is not a matter of personal preference, and I don't know whose edits that was aimed at. What it is a matter of is which source we take as appropriate. Wiki is not an authoritative source in and of itself, so we are left to decide whether this list adopts one external source (eg, names as registered with United Nations for use in English) that we use obediently and consistently, or the consensus (sometimes uncertain) as to what is most commonly recognised English language name. Criteria for article names are not necessarily the same as those for vocabulary in a list. I would have a preference for an externally verifiable version of the name (for all names in dispute, I have no particular axe to grind on the Myanmar/Burma issue), but no desire to get into an edit war over it, so long as both names are somewhere on the list. Kevin McE (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate sources I don't see how the United Nations is in any way relevant; your argument would be stronger at List of United Nations member states, for instance. I'm not personally invested in which name is used, but importing the rationale that was applied at Talk:Burma in the first place, it should be called "Burma" here as well. I do not know that either the standard of the United Nations nor of the most-common English name are to be a kind of trump card for what name is used here (e.g. if we used the former, Laos would be listed as the "Lao People's Democratic Republic" and if the latter, Côte d'Ivoire would be called "Ivory Coast.") Neither of them are in use presently, nor do I personally see a compelling reason to use either. There are several style manuals from several reputable news agencies, governments, and NGOs that use either name, so I simply say be consistent regardless of which one is chosen for the main article itself (as well as the main category, subcategories, templates, daughter articles, etc.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be agreed therefore that it is preferable to follow an external Reliable source. I would suggest that the UN is probably the nearest that there is to a neutral source, and it does include more informal versions of names. Which of the several style manuals would you prefer? Kevin McE (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Error

Hi! The Vatican City is included in the list, but later the "Holy See" appears in the "not included" list. I cannot fix it because I've no enough edits. Please fix it. --Againme (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Holy See and Vatican City are different entities. The latter administers some territory while the former doesn't and is thus excluded from the list. Alæxis_¿question? 20:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your answer. But the list also says that the Holy See governs the Vatican City... therefore administering its territory... It appears like one of the two is wrong... --Againme (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're right... I'm certainly not a specialist in this area. Let's wait for more replies. Alæxis_¿question? 07:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As no one else has commented on the subject, I went ahead with my proposed change. Check it out, I hope you will find it to be satisfactory. Regards. --Againme (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

'Oh let's just add Kosovo while the majority of Countries don't recognize it"

Quite hypocritical. This is not the CIA factbook. --Apotetios (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The majority of countries don't recognise Northern Cyprus either, and there it is in the list.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That's another sad point. --Apotetios (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The topic is "List of Countries", not "List of Countries Recognized by a Majority of Other Countries". If you want to argue that Kosovo is not a country, then do so. Whether or not other countries recognize it is more a question of diplomatic game playing than reality. For example despite Kosovo still being controlled and governed by the UN, more than 40 plus countries recognize it. Meanwhile Taiwan, in its 59th year of independent self-government and 13th year as democratic independent nation only has recognition from 23 other countries. Readin (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Giving Unrecognized/Dependent territories their own sections

Do we really need to have a single alphabetical list consisting of all the countries included here? Why not put dependent territories and/or unrecognized countries in their own sections like they do on List of sovereign states? It'd probably be helpful for readers, it might cut down on people deleting Kosovo or Abkhazia, and it would mean that we could do away with the bold/italic key. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That would make the arguments about which countries to place where so much worse. The list is fine as it is.Readin (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh?

...it was removed from the top section explanation (as a de facto independent state not recognized by any countries) but left in the actual list of countries. Any reason why it was removed? Dafoeberezin3494 (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Western Sahara case

Western Sahara doesn't exist in the official list of countries ISO 3166. It doesn't belongs to any nationality recognized by the UN. Western Sahara exists as a label in the ISO 3166-1 because this document contains both countries and territories also this document was made when Western Sahara was spanish before 1975. Western Sahara is recognized by the UN as a non self-governing territory but it's actually administrated by the kingdom of Morocco.

Western Sahara has nothing to do with Palestine. Palestine is a decolonization process while Western Sahara is a separatism issue.

According to the above, I propose to delete Western Sahara from the countries list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 14:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many non-sovereign territories on this list. Guam is a non-self governing territory that's administered by the United States, but it's still on the list. Aland is a part of Finland and Hong Kong is a part of China, yet both are on the list. A territory does not have to be independent to qualify as a country for the purposes of this article. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope Moroccansahraoui, you're completely wrong on all counts. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Justin/koavf, writing after two already posted comments, you should have stated whether your disagreement concerned the first or the second entry. We may guess but guessing is not a game on WP. Clpda (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Touché I had this up in my browser for awhile and I guess I didn't hit "edit" until after this last comment was made; that was foolish of me. For what it's worth, my link should provide some context for my statements, but you are correct. Pardon me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

From Guam to Transnistria and in-between and any other letters of the alphabet I've missed, it's times like this that perhaps a sanity check is in order? This is a "List of anything remotely purporting to be a country", not a list of countries. No, I take that back, actually, I don't think Guam is a separatist state, it was a possession transferred by treaty to the U.S. It has a president (head of government), but its head of state is the U.S. president. So that makes this a "List of anything WP editors purport to be a country." —PētersV (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

AKA, "Anything can be a country if you put enough ref's behind it and/or put its name in italic." —PētersV (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Which is why in political science, there is a definition for "state" but not one for "country." The latter is a vernacular term used in colloquial settings - it has no strict definition, so what it means is somewhat open-ended. Consequently, the list of sovereign states is a different article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Justin. That said, the Western Sahara entry is not beyond criticism. It looks like the SADR is controlling all of it, which is not the case according to the Legal status of Western Sahara. The entry should certainly not be removed, as Moroccansahraoui suggested, but could be completed such as controlled partly by Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Clpda (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Until very recently, the entry just read "Western Sahara" Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The list you mentionned corresponds to the labels of all countries AND TERRITORIES (ISO 3166-1). The official list ISO 3166 doesn't contain Western Sahara as a country. The list of the labels was made in the 70' when Western Sahara was Spanish. Western Sahara has a statute of non-self-governing territory since the 60' longer before the creation of SADR. My concern is about the nationality of Western Sahara people, who are they for you? Do they have passport !!!!? Do they have the symbols of a country, are they recognized by the UN as a country? SIMPLY NO...SADR has nothing to do with the territory. SADR is an auto-proclamed republic established in Tindouf South of Algeria so far from Western Sahara. Saying that SADR is a republic in Western Sahara is a mistake and big mistake. Western Sahara is a disputed territory but it's actually administrated by the kingdom of Morocco. SADR isn't a sovereign country so Western Sahara isn't a sovereign country. It's a territory. Justin, I have already mentionned this for you many times but you don't want to admit it. I don't know why? You have a list available from the external links of this page which mentions what I wrote above. Please you have to be in conformance of the UN list of countries. Personal convictions have not to influence the content of Wikipedia ! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 15:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Moroccansahraoui, the list of independent countries is at List of sovereign states. This list specifically includes non-independent territories in addition to sovereign states. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not correct to give proofs on other Wikipedia pages basis. I think we must be very wisdom and get rid of all personal opinions or convictions. In the history perspective, Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia of established facts and information. Otherwise, international people would be confused and induced into error. I believe we must dissociate the region and the flag and SADR. There is a reality in the ground where the unionist are far from separatism/communism ideas spread by Polisario Front. I am not exaggerating or diffamating or propagating on saying that the reality of the unionist sahraouis is definitely opposite from what Wikipedia pages are conveying. I will remain convinced that associating Western Sahara to the flag and to SADR is a big MISTAKE. Besides, in the Western Sahara wiki page there is no flag anymore ! Justin, It's obvious you are under the spell of Polisario Front but here in Wikipedia we must be under the spell of the reality and established facts. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted Western Sahara from the list and I put it on 'Entities not included' section. I think it's the best place where it can reflect the reality of the region to avoid any misunderstanding or distortion to the reality of the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't using the list of sovereign states as a source, I was pointing out that the list of independent countries is elsewhere. This is a not just a list of UN-recognized independent states. It is a list of sovereign states, unrecognized states, and non-independent territories. (And I'm beginning to think that this page needs to be renamed to make this point clearer.) In other words: For the purposes of this list, non-independent territories are considered countries. You are using the word "country" in a different way than the editors of this page.

Also, I'm a bit confused by your most recent posts. Do you want the flag and SADR name removed from the Western Sahara entry or do you want the Western Sahara entry removed from the list altogether? Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense Moroccansahraoui, if you think I'm going to re-hash these Moroccan nationalist arguments (which I've been doing for three years), you're mistaken. And yes, there is an SADR passport. Obviously, you are a hypocrite because you claim that personal convictions have no place on Wikipedia, but you have a nationalist username and you're only crusading for deleting Western Sahara, not e.g. Nagorno-Karabakh. (The rest of your edits confirm your pro-Morocco bias.) There have been several nationalists such as yourself who have tried to push their Moroccan POV on Western Sahara articles and your efforts will be no different: you can make verifiable claims based on reliable sources and they will be incorporated into Wikipedia, or you can make personal screeds that will not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Justin, you "are member of the Western Sahara WikiProject, a WikiProject which aims to expand coverage of Western Sahara (SADR) on Wikipedia". I think it's clear that you are not impartial in your manner to treat this very sensitive subject. When I read on your Wikipedia profile that you created all the pages related to Western Sahara Wikiproject I wonder if you can be really honest on your talk. You are associating Western Sahara exclusively to SADR which is not correct. You are misleading international people with your stubbornness. Nobody has to make his own law on Wikipedia. Otherwise it will become absolute anarchy. If Western Sahara remains a COUNTRY and if SADR is dishonestly associated to Western Sahara, Wikipedia has became ANARCHY. You are not serving the wikipedia spirit by acting to support your own opinions. Can anyone tell me how to proceed in such case : I mean when the corrector isn't impartial in his action!. Many thanks in advance. Regarding my profile name, I could take MoroccanBerber, MoroccanArab and I choose MoroccanSahraoui as the context is related to Western Sahara. You are simply lying when you say that there is SADR international passport !!!! It's really unbeareable. MANHASSET TALKS WERE BETWEEN THE KINGDOM OF MOROCCO AND THE POLISARIO FRONT. There were no SADR aroud the table. It's really dishonest what you are making on Wikipedia !!!! What to do in such case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 11:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides, the wiki page of Western Sahara has no FLAG. What is this contradiction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 11:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks (this goes for both Koavf and Moroccansahraoui). We're not here to discuss other editors, only the content of the articles themselves. Now having said that, the fact remains that the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is recognized by 49 states and the African Union as the legitimate government of Western Sahara. And although Morocco claims the entirety of its territory, it is our job to present both POVs here on Wikipedia, see WP:NPOV. If we can mention Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia (which are recognized by a smaller number of countries), surely we can include Western Sahara. Khoikhoi 11:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but in Western Sahara there is no republic. By putting a flag on Western Sahara, you are simply inducing people into error. SADR which is the auto-proclamed republic of Polisario Front is taking place outside of Western Sahara. Polisario Front is taking place in Tindouf camps south Algeria. Western Sahara has the statute of non-self governing territory. It's actually administrated by the kingdom of Morocco. Polisario Front is claiming independence from Tindouf side. Manhasset talks were held between the kingdom of Morocco and Polisario Front, the separatists faction claiming independence. The reality of the ground show that the flag of Western Sahara is moroccan. At the UN level, the statute is still non self-governing territory. Western Sahara must remain territory until the end of the running dispute between the kingdom of Morocco and Polisario Front. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 11:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Let's agree that (most of) Western Sahara is de facto administered by Morocco, and that it's not a self-governing territory. That still makes it appropriate for inclusion in this list, with a status similar to the Palestinian territories (except the SADR enjoys more widespread recognition as a state). The entry should reflect the de facto status, reading something like "Western Sahara - Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, de facto mostly under Moroccan administration". Huon (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Huon, it will be more correct if we get rid of SADR. In such case, the supporters of SADR won't be happy ;-). I think my proposal to write "Western Sahara - a non self governing territory in North Africa" is the best way to avoid misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrygazoulit (talk • contribs) 12:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am with you Huon. I also propose to delete it from the list and add it in a section related to other territories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 13:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Huon, (sorry) I am OK with terygazoulit proposal. At the UN level, Western Sahara is a non self-governing territory even if it's administrated by the kingdom of Morocco. I don't think opportun to compare Western Sahara issue to Palestine. Palestine is recognized by the UN (observer) which is not the case of SADR. Palestine has never recognized SADR !!! I insist on my request to delete Western Sahara entry. Western Sahara is a territory and not a country. Thanks. The Justin views aren't NPOV !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 13:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that this being a list of countries, and not sovereign states, the note at the start (1 state, recognized by 46 UN member states but never admitted to the UN itself, with most of its claimed territory under Moroccan de facto administration: and the bottom of the article are enough to clear any confusion. I see consensus to keep the entry. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Moroccansahraoui, territories are considered countries for the purposes of this list, even if they are not independent. If you read the list, you will see that all other territories on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories are on there. That's reason enough to include Western Sahara, and it's around as NPOV as you can get. I do, however, agree that putting the SADR flag next to the Western Sahara entry is probably inappropriate, and having the SADR name next to the entry almost certainly is. I'd suggest rendering it with noflag, like so:

• Western Sahara

And then including a footnote explaining the status of the territory and of the dispute between Morocco and the SADR. If we then decided that we wanted to include SADR as well, we could give its own entry which doesn't include the words Western Sahara, like so:

• Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

And again give it some copious footnoting. I don't think removing Western Sahara makes sense though. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not asking to remove Western Sahara entry from the page. I am asking to remove it from the list. I am saying that Western Sahara has no flag and has no republic. In such case, Western Sahara could be present on 'Entities not included'. There is no consensus on that at all. It's not about sovereign state vs country. It's about country vs territory. To me sovereign state is a country, there is no difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As regards this list, you are incorrect. A country is different from a sovereign state, and there is near total consensus on this issue. The criteria for what we define as a country is right there at the top of the article, and Western Sahara fits into it. The article even specifically says "Such inclusion criteria means the list does not treat the word 'country' as synonymous with 'sovereign state,'". As long as the list of countries contains non-sovereign territories, Western Sahara belongs on the list. There's no way around it. Orange Tuesday (talk)

I do agree with the first entry of Western Sahara. The second entry makes some trouble with the concept of a country : a country needs attributes of sovereignty. SADR is a republic taking place south Algeria so far from Western Sahara. The name of SADR has nothing to do with Western Sahara. That's why I return to my first proposal. I propose to keep the entry of Western Sahara in the section 'Entities not included' with the mention related to the self-governing statute. That will be more correct and more in comformance with the political statute of Western Sahara. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote "The name of SADR has nothing to do with Western Sahara", that means we aren't talking about "Western Sahara Republic" or "The state of Western Sahara". We are talking about an auto-proclamed republic in a violation of international law with no territorial existence (Inside Algeria so far from Western Sahara). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

But we're not just talking about the SADR. You've said many times during this discussion that you specifically want Western Sahara (i.e. the territory) removed from the list and put into the Entities not included section. That's what I have a problem with. As a territory on the UN List of Non-self governing territories, it belongs in the main body of the list, right there under Wallis and Futuna. Whether or not we include the SADR name and flag, that's debatable. But Western Sahara itself has to stay. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am with you. Western Sahara must be kept on the list as a non self-governing territory but not as a country. SADR has nothing to do in this list/page anymore. Just to let you know about the reality of the ground, the flag existing at the top of administrations in the main cities of Western Sahara, Laayoune city and Dakhla city and Smara city and Boujdour city and Aousserd city, is the moroccan one because Morocco is actually the administrative authority of Western Sahara. At the UN level, Western Sahara is a disputed region/territory between the kingdom of Morocco and Polisario Front who is claiming independence from his side south Algeria. This is a link [7] to the last report of the SG of the UN on Western Sahara issue. I invite you to read it and focus on the official map of the UN where there is no mention to SADR neither the territory controlled by SADR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 17:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a remark on legal status of Western Sahara page where it mentions 28 countries recognizing SADR while the text above is mentionning 46. Please do correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to comment on this.

That particular article apparently has an issue with internal consistency as the map contains a few countries not listed. According to this site the full list of countries recognising the SADR, along with the date they first recognised it, is:

Algeria (1976), Angola (1976), Antigua and Barbuda (1987), Barbados (1988), Belize (1986), Bolivia (1982), Cuba (1980), East Timor (2002), Ecuador (1983-2004, 2006), Ethiopia (1979), Grenada (1979), Guinea-Bissau (1976-97, 2000), Guyana (1979), Haiti (2006), Iran (1980), Jamaica (1979), Laos (1979), Lesotho (1979), Malawi (1994-2001, 2008), Mali (1984), Mauritania (1984), Mauritius (1982), Mexico (1979), Mozambique (1976), Namibia (1990), Nicaragua (1979-2000, 2007), Nigeria (1984), North Korea (1976), Panama (1978), Papua New Guinea (1981), Rwanda (1976), Sierra Leone (1980-2002, 2003), St. Kitts and Nevis (1987), St. Vincent and the Grenadines (2002), South Africa (2004), Suriname (1982), Syria (1980), Tanzania (1978), Trinidad and Tobago (1986), Uganda (1979), Uruguay (2005), Venezuela (1982), Vietnam (1979), Zambia (1979), Zimbabwe (1980)

That's 45 countries. It's possible that either we or they are out of date, but note that some of those dates are 2008. I will bring up the discrepancies at that talk page.

For the record, Western Sahara pretty clearly belongs on this list in my view. Pfainuk talk 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My two cents again Obviously, I'm not going to go on ad infinitum about personal attacks and my own credibility. Neither you nor I are disinterested parties in the Western Sahara conflict and the Moroccan occupation. That having been said, it is possible for either of us to make edits that conform to the neutrality policy of Wikipedia, which I think I do. If you have some complaint about my behavior, feel free to post on WP:AN.

And yes, there are SADR passports.[8]

The idea that the SADR isn't present in Western Sahara is, of course, untrue. Pursuant to the Agreed Framework #1 - the ceasefire negotiated by the United Nations - the SADR patrols the Free Zone, minus the 3-5 km buffer zone next to the berm. This is a set of old Moroccan canards that hold no water and are irrelevant to this discussion because the criteria for inclusion are clearly presented on this page and no one is going to allow anyone to remove a case that obviously fits them.

As for inconsistency with the recognitions, this was an on-going problem due to a POV fork and the inclusion of some dubious sources on that article. I hold myself personally responsible for being complacent about updating and tidying the article, its references, and the map. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's too much Justin. To justify that SADR has passports, you put a link to GlobalVoicesOnline article where it's mentionned that the sahrawi TV has been launched which is not true anymore. I made comments on this. Then what's the relationship of passport existence and this article? That is simply called propaganda. Justin, you aren't here on Wikipedia to spread impartiality. You are here to propagate Polisario Front theses. You have the power of editing and that is not normal. I made a link to the last report of the UN on the issue where there is no mention to SADR neither the territory controlled by SADR and the only thing you did is to put a link to a GV article. What's that? excuse me but that is more than fascism. The unique idea whitout any respect to the ideas of others. Is that the spirit of Wikipedia? Am I wrong when I say that there is no mention to SADR in UN resolutions? I can't believe how the reality is diverted by Justin. Justin, you are very young (26 old years) and you are far from the region, you have no idea about the reality of the ground. Besides, you are diverting the UN RESOLUTIONS. Oh Jesus! what's that!!! I need an answer to my question : Am I wrong when I say that there is no mention of SADR in UN resolutions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 11:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the 45 (and not 46) countries recongnizing SADR, let me do the same as you do according to the list present in this page : Algeria, Angola, Burundi, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Namibia, Nigeria, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Belize, Cuba, Haiti, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Ecuador, Uruguay, Venezuela, Iran, East Timor. That's about 28 knowing that :

Mali, Guinea-Bissau, Libya, Panama, Uruguay, Iran and probably others withdraw their recognition of SADR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

allow me to take part of this interesting discussin concerning the nature of the Western sahara issue, in this respect , we have to understand that most if not all the countries that recognised the SADR are from either the African countries or the South american countries which have no influence on the international politics , in fact it is thinks to the algerian pressure on these countries that this republic was recognised . Having said that no arabic , Islamic , European , and even THe countries belonging to the Socialist bloc (apet from CUBA) have regonized this republic including the former Soviet Union , and Russia now . from the international law point of view the "RASD" the unilateral proclamation by polisario is in flagrant violation to the interrnational law, the Arab shraoui Democratic republic has no territorial existence, it is set up in Tindouf inside Algeria territories , it has no attribute of sovereignty, exists only on the territory of a foreign country--196.206.255.160 (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)TERRY

I am with the comment from 196.206.255.160 which seems to be TERRY. TERRY, you have to be connected then sign your comments. Thanks. How should we proceed in such case? Is that meaning that there is no consensus on keeping SADR on the list?--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the former proposal of Orange Tuesday. It's a first step to a consensus. Why not discussing Orange Tuesday proposal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 14:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Passports and other things that don't matter That post was made by Dr. Nick Brooks who is a professional academic doing archaeology in the Free Zone; he would know. I know of no mention of the SADR in any UN resolution. I also do not see how that is germane. The anon IP made the false claim that no Arabic (Syria), Islamic (Iran), European (Yugoslavia), or Socialist bloc countries (Libya) have recognized the SADR. Again, what this has to do with it being on a list of countries is beyond me. You're never going to get Western Sahara deleted from this list; it's not going to happen. The notion that the two oof you constitute consensus is also complete nonsense. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. All of this - whether it issues passports, whether it is recognised and by whom and suchlike have no bearing on this list. The situation is adequately explained in the introduction and I see neither need nor consensus for any change. Pfainuk talk 11:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion whether the "RASD" is a state or not , should be dealt from the international law point of view , to make life easy for everybody taking part of this discussion i would suggest to go the facts on the ground which are the following : 1-this republic was declared from Algeria , and precisely from Tindouf in the refugee camps . 2-the repuplic in question can not be recognized because from the international law it has no attribute of sovereignty, and therefore exists on the territory of a another country ; 3 - the same republic is not recognized by the UN , in fact all resolutions dealing with the western Sahara mention the "Polisario front " only.4- whether the "RASD" is recognised by 30 or 60 countries most of them are from the African countinent , and they announced their recognition as result of the Algerian pressure, as it is known to almost everybody ; in addition to the information cited above , the Polisario officials move around the world with Algerian Diplomatic passports ; there is no doubt that the components of a sovereign state, as stated in the international law and the UN resolutions dealing with such matters in addition to the nonnrecognition of the international community of such republic should lead us to believe that the "RASD" can not and should not be added to the list of countries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.206.255.160 (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

being myself a researcher in the field of international politics, i hope that this discussion should aim to give the right information and datum about topics and international events ,without using either terms or sentences such as "you are never going to delete western sahara from this list" the discussion should aim at bringing to the readers and resershers true and concrete informations about any political , economic , and cultural events happening in the world, as tothe Western Sahara conflict, it does exists , the refugee camps of Sharaouis does exist inside the Algerian territory, this conflict is dealt by the security council of the UN , but as far as the "RASD" is concerned was an unilateral proclamation by Polisario for its own purpopses but in contadiction with the international law, WIkipedia , being a genuine source of information,should delete the "RASD" from the list of countries for the following reasons : 1- the UN is still dealing with the conflict through diplomatic channels, searching for a final settlement 2- the outcome of the UN efforts to reach a solution will determine if the Sahraouis are to create their own state , or simply become part of Morocco , and enjoy a substantial autnomy as it is one of the alternatives that Morocco put forward , and the UN security council sees it as a credible and serious solution to the conflict . In my view the "SADR " should be removed from the list of countries for the reasons i have explained above,particularly that the Polisario front made it clear in so many occasions that it insists on having a refurendum within the Sharaouis , whether Western Sahara will be become an independant state or simply remains part of Morocco, therefore the proclamatio of republic by the Polisario is a countrdiction with its non stop claim of a referendum ....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.206.255.160 (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no zone called 'Free Zone' in the UN resolutions. We must call things by their name. It's about a buffer zone established for the ceasefire agreement and dishonestly called 'Free Zone' by polisario leaders and its supporters. FYI, Syria, Iran and Lybia withdraw their recognition of SADR since many years. Regarding Yougoslavia, you are talking about the state of Yougoslavia before the war of the 90' which make divided the former Yougoslavia. There is no mean to divert the reality of UN resolutions. Again, there is no mention of SADR or territory under the control of SADR. Everything else is about allegation and misinformation. Western Sahara is a territory, a non self-governing territory under the administration of the kingdom of Morocco. UN resolutions are resuming the statute of Western Sahara. In such case, there is no consensus on keeping Western Sahara on the list. I as terrygazoulit disagree with you so there is no consensus on that. Besides, I know Nick Brooks very well and we had already interesting chats on the issue and I respect his own opinions BUT we can't build the reputation of Wikipedia on personal opinions. We have UN resolutions beyond everything. Are UN resolutions to be trusted or not? --Moroccansahraoui (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

well i guess our friend(Moroccan Sahraoui ) has got a point here, as i totally agree with him that the UN resolutions should be the basis of any decision concerning either the Polisario or the"SADR". The UN does not recognize the so-called"SADR", secondly in the UN resoltions concerning the western sahara conflict there is no mention of the republic , in fact the UN refers to Morocco and Polisario, in addition to that the UN is still supervising direct negotiations between the two parties, so far these negotiations have not lead to any agreement, so it is from the legal point of view that the "SADR" should be removed from the list of countries until the international community through the UN achieve a settlement of the conflict —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrygazoulit (talk • contribs) 14:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In my view The western sahara issue as it is written down in the Wikipedia pages contains plenty of correct informations , but there are still some mistakes that we should discuss in order to correct them , especially in terms ofthe following topics : 1-The moroccan wall stalemates the war 2-cease-fire and referendum process 3-political ideology 'and the Sahraoui Arab Democratic Republic, these opur some topics i would like to discuss putting forward documents —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrygazoulit (talk • contribs) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

These issues are, or should be, discussed on other pages, such as Legal status of Western Sahara, not on a list. The note (currently nr. 40) gives enough additional information to the reader to see that WS is in a 'special situation'. I see 2 options that could reach consensus:

• Keep the WS entry but remove the mention of SADR and leave it to the note to redirect the reader to the other pages giving more details, OR
• Keep the WS entry and add 'administered by Morocco but claimed by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, in exile in Algeria'.

I prefer the first option, since it discharges this list of a discussion which I find more appropriate on more specialized pages. If there is consensus on the second option, fine! Clpda (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the big problems are two things : the flag and the representativity of Polisario Front. The flag has nothing to do in the WS entry. Regarding the two options, I believe that the UN statute of WS must be taken into account based on UN resolutions no more nor less. In other words, if we let WS on the list we need to put in front of it a flag while there is no UN legal flag. Second, the sole body recognized by the UN is Polisario Front. To avoid all this kind of contradiction, I am asking you to delete the Western Sahara entry from the list and to put it on the buttom section. I will complete the proposal made by Clpda : "WS a non self-governing territory administrated by the kingdom of Morocco but claimed by Polisario Front" That should be the definitve format of consensus.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with Clpda, the matters mentionned by Terrygazoulit must be discussed in other pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 16:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[indenting reinitialized] About the flag, I apologize having neglected this issue. If the current flag is the one of SADR, I agree that it should be removed presto and, where available, replaced by the flag that WS had at the Spanish time. Because WS status is still unsorted, the latest admitted flag should prevail (no way of putting Morocco's or a derivative!). For your second comment (Polisario vs. SADR), I can't say. Clpda (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the legal situation the SADR has de facto control of the area east of the berm (which they call the "free zone") and as such there is a direct parallel with other states that don't have general recognition. We should - as we currently do - treat Western Sahara in exactly the same way as Northern Cyprus, Somaliland and other unrecognised states exercising de facto control over territory: giving the official name as claimed with a footnote giving a detailed discussion of the situation and links to more details.

This list explicitly includes as part of its criteria several claimed countries which many would argue are illegal under international law, explaining the situations as we go. There is no reason to make this case an exception. Pfainuk talk 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I basically agree, but what does it mean concretely? What are your opinion(s) regarding the latest proposal(s) ? Clpda (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I think we should stick with the current version, except probably with the words "Western Sahara" in bold and italic as the other unrecognised states are. Removing the flag or the reference to SADR would make Western Sahara an exception to the pattern used elsewhere, and so I can't support that. Pfainuk talk 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But does treating all of these unrecognized states exactly the same make sense? I mean, they're all pretty unique cases. Anyway, I'm not convinced that giving Western Sahara (the territory) SADR's name and flag is NPOV. I think the best solution would be to have a Western Sahara entry without the SADR flag or name and then a separate entry for the SADR without the Western Sahara name. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I should elaborate on why I think the SADR is a special case. With Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, etc. there are only two sides to the argument. One side claims that they're independent, the other claims that they're as part of another sovereign state. With the Western Sahara dispute, there are three sides. Morocco claims the territory as an integral part of Morocco (The Southern Provinces), the SADR claims it as an independent state, and the UN classifies it as a non-self governing territory. If you only have the "Western Sahara - Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" entry, you're not including that third side at all. That's what makes the current version NPOV.

And just to clarify, I feel that removing the SADR name and flag entirely would also be NPOV. Orange Tuesday (talk)

I hope I'm not spamming the talk page here, but I just want to add that listing the SADR under "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" instead of "Western Sahara" would make this list consistent with the list of sovereign states. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, well I don't mind going for the current version. But I do feel that since a significant part of the claimed territory is controlled by the SADR government, the flag and name of the SADR should remain - along with the footnote to explain the situation in more detail. While Western Sahara is on the UN list of non-self-governing territories, it is an unique case on that list as every other territory on it has a formally acknowledged administering power - including in one case where sovereignty is disputed - while Western Sahara does not.

On which name to use as main descriptor - well "Western Sahara" is the common name for the territory, so that's my preference. Pfainuk talk 19:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the last bits of discussion, I would then amend my second proposal as:

• [no flag] Western Sahara - administered by Morocco, claimed by the Polisario Front, in exile in Algeria but controlling part of the territory, aiming to make it The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

How does that fit? Clpda (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What we currently say in the footnote is:

Western Sahara is a former Spanish colony which was in 1960s put on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories subject to decolonization. It is claimed by the Kingdom of Morocco which currently rules large portion of it, and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) which exercises effective control over the area east of Moroccan Wall. SADR is a member of the African Union and the Asian-African Strategic Partnership formed at the 2005 Asian-African Conference. It is currently recognized by 46 UN member states but has never been admitted to UN itself. UN has attempted to hold a referendum through the mission United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO), and is holding direct talks between Morocco and the Polisario Front (the ruling party of SADR). Despite these attempts, however, the legal and political status of Western Sahara remain unresolved. See also Legal status of Western Sahara.

IMO that's enough explanation. I must admit I still think the status quo is the best option here. While Western Sahara may be a unique situation in UN terms, the SADR do have effective control over the areas east of the Berm and I don't see why we should get rid of their flag while keeping those of Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Kosovo, Taiwan and so on. Pfainuk talk 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't focus on the flag, that's just an image. The main points are that:

• the Western Sahara entry should be kept on the list - the earlier proponent of removing it has admitted it, as long as SADR is removed or replaced into context.
• The additional information following the WS entry should balance the various entities available after it, the details being left to te notes and other pages. Clpda (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading over my comments above, I accidentally said that the current version is NPOV when I should have said that it was not NPOV. (Whoops!) Most states neither recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara nor the independence of the SADR. So why does the SADR get on the list when Western Sahara the non self governing territory gets left off it? I'm going to say it again: Split the entry into two. One for Western Sahara and one for the SADR. You're never going to get an NPOV list if you try to fit both into the same bullet point.

We should also make a new section on the talk page and list all the proposals there, because this discussion is really really long. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense I have never tried to hide my own biases, but rather, broadcast them in order to be accountable. The very fact that Moroccansahraoui uses scare quotes every time he mentions the SADR shows his biases as well. No one is indifferent to everything, and making accusations about someone else on a talk page doesn't get us anywhere. If you want to support a claim, you should give verifiable facts rather than character assassination.

Almost none of this has anything to do with anything, but I will point some serious errors and possible distrortions. The SADR was in Western Sahara in 1976. At the time, the Polsiario did not have the support of Algeria, and they weren't even the first state to recognize them. This claim that the Polisario are some Algerian organization made up of crypto-Moroccans is an old canard. In fact, the SADR couldn't have been declared from the camps in Tindouf: the camps were formed because of the Moroccan invasion (including the dropping of napalm on innocent civilian populations) and the invasion only happened after the declaration of independence. Your claim is not only untrue, it's utter nonsense.

The claim that the SADR cannot be recognized is also nonsense as well. The Montevideo Convention states that a state must have (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. The SADR has all of these, therefore it can be a state.

The UN is a neutral arbiter in the conflict: it neither recognizes the SADR's sovereignty nor Morocco's. Since it defines the Polisario Front and the Kingdom of Morocco as the parties to the conflict, there would be no impetus to mention the SADR. That having been said, according to the Constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, until the occupation of Western Sahara ends and free elections can be instituted, the SADR is a one-party state with the Polisario as the single party.

Several non-African states have recognized the SADR and if you're going to make the claim that they were somehow strong-armed by Algeria (?) and this is a well-known fact, it should be easy to provide a source for that claim.

Let me reiterate that Western Sahara is are never going to delete from this list, as it fits the criteria and unilateral Moroccan nationalism is not convincing evidence.

By your own reasoning, Palestine should be deleted because "the UN is still dealing with the conflict through diplomatic channels, searching for a final settlement" and was a "was an unilateral proclamation by the PLO for its own purpopses." Also, that is true of several unrecognized states on this list and virtually every state in history. (E.g. the United States of America was "an unilateral proclamation by the Founding Fathers for their own purpopses.") The position of the Polisario is not that "whether Western Sahara will be become an independant state or simply remains part of Morocco," because Western Sahara is not, nor has been a part of Morocco. Furthermore, "the proclamatio of republic by the Polisario" is not a "countrdiction [sic] with its non stop claim of a referendum" because the declaration was made decades prior to the referendum process. You are clearly either ignorant about the conflict or your twisting around facts to make a nonsense case that is incredulous.

The Free Zone was established in the Agreed Framework No. 1; the ceasefire agreement that lead to MINURSO's deployment in the region. Obviously, the UN does not call it the Free Zone or the Liberated Territories, but it is territory under the administration of the SADR pursuant to the mandate of MINURSO. The buffer zone is a much smaller region that is only 3-5 kilometers around the Moroccan Wall on either side. Since Western Sahara is more than 10 kilometers wide, that leaves a substantial region. Again, this is a lame canard that you either believe to be true because you don't know better, or you are presenting as true because you're lying. These are the only possible options.

You also make some wild claim about Libya not recognizing the SADR; I have no idea where you got this information, since Libya has been one of the biggest backers of the Polsiario and one of the most frequent destinations for Sahrawi students to study abroad. Again, if you want to make an outrageous claim like that, it will only be credible if you offer a source. Apparently, you are unwilling or unable to do that.

You seem to have some misconstrual of the function of the United Nations: they do not vet candidates for lists on Wikipedia. The UN doesn't recognize (e.g.) South Ossetia or Kosovo. It's curious that you aren't arguing for their deletion from the list. At the risk of sounding bad-faith myself, you are clearly just displaying your own bad-faith and biased editing. I'm happy to use the UN as a source where it is appropriate (e.g. earlier on in this same post), when they are irrelevant, they are irrelevant.

As for cplda's two options, neither is strictly accurate:

• "remove the mention of SADR and leave it to the note to redirect the reader to the other pages giving more details," would be out-of-step with all other cases of unrecgonized states (e.g. TRNC or Kosovo.) Why should the SADR receive some kind of oppbrobrium that isn't reserved for Abkhazia?
• "Western Sahara - administered by Morocco, claimed by the Polisario Front, in exile in Algeria but controlling part of the territory, aiming to make it The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" is more accurate, but ignores the fact that the SADR already exists and the SADR is attempting to control their remaining claimed territory. It would be like saying that the Republic of China doesn't exist until it takes back the Mainland.

I'm all for some massaging of the text, but I personally don't see what's so problematic with it as it stands.

Regarding the flag: it is the flag of the SADR, Polisario, and Western Sahara (e.g. the Flag of the Republic of China's canton is the flag of the KMT.) Again, if the flag of Kosovo is on here, why not the Sahrawi flag? What is so compelling about deleting information about this one case and leaving it about all these others? Especially when there is a much stronger legal precedent for thinking of the SADR as a state than virtually all of the other unrecognized states on this list. The last flag used by the Spaniards was the flag of the Spanish Empire as Spanish Sahara was a constituent of Spain at the time. Why we would include a flagicon for the Spanish Empire is beyond me. The idea of mentioning one (the SADR or Western Sahara) with no reference to the other is virtually impossible; how could you even explain one of those entries?

Orange Tuesday's comments about there being three positions doesn't make any sense to me: the UN mediates between the Repbulic of Cyprus and the TRNC as well. They recognize that there are two parties, even if only one is understood as a state. I don't really see how this is different.

"Most states neither recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara nor the independence of the SADR. So why does the SADR get on the list when Western Sahara the non self governing territory gets left off it?" The rest of the UN's list of non-self governing territories are integrated into states as dependencies and many of them have no active indepenence movement. None of them have declared indpendence nor been recognized as such by anyone else. Western Sahara is very different from a number of those cases historically and as a matter of international law.

Splitting the entries would be like splitting Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo, since the latter doesn't control Mitrovica. What's the point? States that recognize the SADR recognize it as the government of Western Sahara; they are identical as much as "France" and the "French Republic" are to the international community at large.

I suppose by and large, Pfainuk and I are on the same page here: the status quo is working and the proposals are not better as they miss something of the complexity of the situation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As discussion is moving forward, I don't think that spliting the entry in 2 entries will give the right point on the western sahara case. As SADR isn't a sovereign country, SADR has no place here. WS is a territory. I am with the idea to put a WS entry without any flag but we need to precise to the readers the official statute of the region (UN view). I support the idea to precise that "WS is a non self-governing territory administrated by the kingdom of Morocco and claimed by Polisario Front". There is no official document (UN) where it's precised that the kingdom of Morocco is controlling 80% of the territory and that Polisario Front is controlling 20%. Besides, there is no official document (UN) where the term 'Free Zone' is mentionned. All this kind of information come from pro-polisario websites. Here, we need to be impartial (NPOV) and clever in our presentation of the list.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

POV Saying that the SADR is not a sovereign state is POV; that's not for this list to decide. Since there are states who say otherwise, it's simply up to Wikipedia to report that reality rather than choose a side. As I have pointed out to you several times, SADR administration of the Free Zone was a product of the Agreed Framework No. 1 ceasefire. I'm not going to go over this with you ad infinitum. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll break this down. In the case of Kosovo, there's recognition and there's non-recognition. By which I mean, either you recognize the Republic of Kosovo as an independent state (in which case it would meet the inclusion criteria for this list) or you recognize it as an integral part of Serbia (in which case it would not meet the inclusion criteria for this list). We provide a neutral point of view between these two positions by putting Kosovo in italics. This tells the reader that some states recognize the independence of Kosovo and some do not. Taiwan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, and Transnistria all fit the same pattern. It's binary. Either its independent and belongs on the list or it's part of another state and it doesn't. That's why there's no POV problem with the flags or official names of any of these entries. Anyone who would object to having and "Republic of Abkhazia" on the Abkhazia entry would not want the entry to be on the list at all, because they would view it as a part of Georgia and not as an independent state.

But with Western Sahara, the situation is a bit different. There are three points of view on the subject. The first view is that it's an integral part of Morroco (and therefore not on the list). The second view is that it's independent as the SADR (and therefore on the list). But the third view that it is not a part of Morocco, but that it is also not a part of the SADR (therefore on the list but in a different form). This is what makes Western Sahara unique from the other states on the list. It has two competing POVs for what the correct entry on the list of countries would actually be. Those holding the second view would want something like this:

• Western Sahara - Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

while people holding the third view would want something like this:

• Western Sahara

The thing is, you can't have both of these in the same bullet point. You can't have that flag and not have a flag, and you can't have that name and not have a name. And if we keep the status quo, we only represent the first and second views and ignore the third. That's what makes the status quo a violation of NPOV. It presents the Western Sahara situation as a binary dispute between the SADR and Morocco when a significant chunk of the international community favours neither side.

That's why I'm so strongly for splitting the entry like this:

• Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
• Western Sahara

It allows SADR to remain on the list, while at the same time allowing for a Western Sahara entry which does not give undue weight to the SADR POV. Orange Tuesday (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hardly A great many states have said nothing about Kosovo - neither that it is an independent republic, nor that it is an integral part of Serbia. Furthermore, what constitutes Kosovo is what makes a parallel with the SADR/Western Sahara. The Republic of Kosovo does not control the entirety of what is recognized to be the region of Kosovo; do you propose to make two separate entries? If not, why should this be any different? As I pointed out, the UN mediated between two parties in the TRNC/Republic of Cyprus conflict without recognizing it as a state; that is hardly a third point of view. It is a policy of deliberate ambiguity in which they recognize that there is a dispute and two parties. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm basing this argument on international recognition and not territorial control, so the example of North Kosovo isn't really relevant. But more to the point, staying out of (or mediating) a dispute is different than taking a third side in a dispute. The United Nations specifically calls Western Sahara a non-self governing territory. It classifies it as a distinct geopolitical entity. That's something which it doesn't do for the Northern Cyprus. It's a mediator in the Cyprus dispute, but it doesn't produce world maps with a divided Cyprus and it doesn't include Northern Cyprus on its list of non-self governing territories.

Taiwan is not Abkhazia, and Kosovo is not Western Sahara. These unrecognized countries are all different. Just because we've put them into the same category doesn't mean that we have to treat each of them the exact same. We can make exceptions. Orange Tuesday (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure That is true, but I still see no compelling reason to do anything to alter the status quo. Your point about Cyprus simply isn't true and I don't know where you got that idea - the Green Line is a product of UN intervention. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

iam afraid some argument put forward by some contributors are out of the context, for example KOSOVO was part of Yougoslavia, during the socialist era , the war in the Balkans , paved a way to the independance of BOSNIA, and the inhabitants of Kosovo with the help of the international community have imposed their wish not to remainh part of Yougoslavia , to compare the case of Cosovo with Western Sahara is out of context, therefore iam asking those contributors to read the history of the area , particularly from 1884 when the Spanish colonized the Sahara, until 1975 when the confict about western Sahara became obvious betwen Morocco and Algeria on one hand , and Morocco and Polisario on the other hand .reading the history of the conflict , and particularly from thev point of view of the legal and historical relationship between Morocco and Western sahara , will definitely help each contributor to be more objective, and avoid any unnecessary arguments--Terrygazoulit (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)