Talk:List of sovereign states

When editing the List of sovereign states in the sense of adding or removing an entry, please do: make sure you correct the arithmetic in the "criteria for inclusion" section, e.g. 192+3=195 to 193+1=194.

Palestine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archive

I've archived talk. The discussion on the Cook Islands and Niue appeared to have reached a natural conclusion, but if anyone has something to add, then by all means retrieve those sections from the archive. Pfainuk talk 23:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan

Applying the discussion on Cook Islands and Niue, should this country be listed in the main part of the rather than the bottom since the UN definition (One China Policy) does not apply. The People's Republic of China was a sovereign state before 1971 so why isn't Taiwan now, it still functions as a sovereign state including membership in international organizations. Also, should "diplomtic recognition" just include formal recognition or should it also include informal diplomatic ties.--23prootie (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan belongs in the section at the bottom for states lacking general recognition. The main part of the list should only include sovereign states with widespread formal recognition, something Taiwan lacks. China trades and has talks with Taiwan but theres a big difference between that and recognizing /accpeting them. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason why Taiwan doesn't have widespread recognition is not because countries do not want it to become recognized it but because they are unable to do so (due to the UN's One China Policy). The policy was first applied to the People's Republic of China until 1971 but they were still treated as sovereign at that time. Now, what I am trying to challenge is the assertion in the Cooks Islands and Niue debate that the UN alone does not define what country is sovereign and what is not because here that simply is the case. Or should I say, ignoring the UN (along with its One-China Policy) is Taiwan sovereign?--23prootie (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm editing the list of sovereign states in 1949 up to 1971 since the People's Republic of China was not a sovereign country during that period due to the One-China Policy.--23prootie (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The situation with the Cook islands was nothing like the issue of Taiwan. Nobody is disputing if Taiwan is a sovereign state, its simply where it belongs on the list and considering the lack of formal international recognition it clearly doesnt belong in the main list, so must be in the disputed / unrecognied territories. Well done for making the changes to the other pages though, u are right that peoples republic of China shouldnt be listed as a recognized sovereign state before that date. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Positioning of EU, SMOM and so on

An anon wants me to discuss this.

At the moment this list starts off with a nice list of specific entities that are not included before the actual list. This is quite ridiculous. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to start a list of sovereign states with a list of entities that are not included in the list, before doing the list itself. It makes far more sense to put them after the list, and I made an edit to that effect. Is there any objection to this edit beyond the fact that I didn't put something on talk first (the objection in the edit summary)? Pfainuk talk 21:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's under "Criteria for inclusion", and it's out side of the list. This section is a summary, of what is included, and whats not included, EU, Antarctica and SMOM, are the few oddballs, that are hard to categorize, and need extra explanation, it would be bizare to separate it from "Criteria for inclusion" . Further more, "Other states" are not included in the list either, so "Entities not included", is not good enough. So that "Criteria for inclusion" stays consistent, it should mention the oddballs, and to have them in more detail, in there own section.--217.112.178.140 (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Criteria for inclusion" Antarctica, the European Union and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta are noteworthy but unlisted, because they do not possess all the qualifications in the Montevideo Convention.

"Not included but noteworthy entities"

• one entity, a UN observer member, recognized by 96 states, but with extraterritorial areas within Rome is the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.
• The European Union, a sui generis supranational organization which currently has 27 member countries. The member countries transferred part of their legislative, executive, and judicial powers to the institutions of the EU; therefore, it has some characteristics of a sovereign state, without generally being considered a sovereign state.
• Parts of Antarctica are claimed by a few nations.

I agree its odd that there is a huge list of entities that are not included ABOVE the main list itself and those disputed sovereign states simply get listed again after the main list as well. The intro should make it clear what is and is not included in the main list but does not have to detail every single one of them, it should simply link to the correct section.

I also dont like the description ""Not included but noteworthy entities" BritishWatcher (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

These three are not part of the criteria for inclusion.

The point of the criteria for inclusion is that they define the purpose of the list. Entities that meet the criteria go on the list. Those that do not, do not. The EU (fails 1-2/5 criteria), Antarctica (fails 3-4/5) and SMOM (fails 1/5) unambiguously do not meet the criteria, and the fact that they do not meet the criteria is not changed by the fact that they are mentioned in the article. Those entities are not exceptions to the criteria. They are entities that do not meet the criteria that the editors of the article have decided are noteworthy. The criteria are not more consistent with these three there. If anything, they are less consistent, in that this means that the list starts off with a list of entities that the criteria say shouldn't be included on the list.

The "Other states" are not states that do not meet the criteria. They are states that meet the criteria set out but that do not meet the additional criterion for the first part of the list (general international recognition). The "other states" are part of the list, they've just been separated off.

Put them at the end of the list, in a section entitled "entities not included" or "notes", and we don't have the mad situation of starting a list with a long and detailed list of entities that are not included on the list - the EU and SMOM are hardly the only states in the world that only fail one or two of the criteria (for example, most local governments have territory, population and government and so meet 3/5). Pfainuk talk 11:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Like several special entities the EU is included and explained in the section "Criteria for inclusion". Moving the whole section does not make sense as this is a useful addition to the defintion of so called souvereignity. The definition and its examples come first not last. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Lear21 you say "Like several special entities the EU is included and explained in the section "Criteria for inclusion" " but thats the problem. The European Union is NOT meant to be included on this list, its meant to be noted as an entity NOT included, unlike the 193 sovereign states / 10 unrecognized ones.

The European Union is not a sovereign state, it could be mentioned before the list if it says "This list does not include micronations and other entities such as the European Union or it can be listed separetly underneath the main list. The European Union does not meet the criteria required to be "included" BritishWatcher (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The European Union is a sovereign state. Its political organization is fundamentally identical to the political organization of the United States of America in 1789. It is a sovereign state comprised of sovereign states which have agreed to form a federation, a common economic bloc with common currency, and a common defense infrastructure. To say that the EU is not a state is to say that the USA is not a state. It is an absurdity. --70.131.112.177 (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) If that list is there to illustrate the sorts of entries that do not belong on this list, then why, out of all the non-sovereign entities in the world, use what are possibly the three least representative such entities? Africa, Niue, Oklahoma, Río Negro, Büsingen am Hochrhein, Halluin and Riccall would all illustrate the point better. And if that's the reason, why do we not tell the readers why these entries are not included on the list?

How is their inclusion a useful addition to the definition of "sovereignty" in this list? They are not part of the definition because they are separated off. They are not examples of states that don't meet the criteria because the article doesn't explain the reasoning for not including them. They are not borderline cases to be used as precedent because no credible argument could be made that any of these three entities meets the criteria that have just been given.

And how on earth does it make sense to have our readers wade through a potentially very long list of entities not included in the list before they are allowed to get at the list itself? Pfainuk talk 18:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree to this proposal. The reader should understand the criteria of inclusion in the list beforehand, and should not wade through the very end of the article to understand the composure of the actual list, and than wade up again to the top of the list. In context of the similar discussion regarding List of countries and outlying territories by total area, I suspect that the true agenda for this proposal is to move the EU entry out of sight to the very end of the article. The result of that potential change can be seen here: [1]. The information of the initial section of the article was moved even after the references/sources section and additionally the flags were removed - To me, that shows to true intend here. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How on earth does listing these three entities and goodness knows what else before the list aid in the reader's understanding of the criteria of inclusion? What role do they play in the criteria for inclusion? You accuse editors of agendas, but you fail to explain what exactly they're doing there. I note that whereas I am mentioning all three - because I want to move all three - you focus in on the EU.

As I said above, they are not examples of states that don't meet the criteria because the article doesn't explain the reasoning for not including them - if they were we could use far better examples than the EU, Antarctica and the SMOM. They are not borderline cases to be used as precedent because no credible argument could be made that any of these three entities meets the criteria that have just been given. You have conveniently ignored both of these points.

What I want is these three removed to below the list - like this - so that we are not in the crazy position of starting a list of sovereign states with a potentially limitless list of entities that are not sovereign states. This is not a secret. I'm not pretending that I want anything else. You say there is an agenda to move the EU entry out of sight. If the USA was listed at the top, above Afghanistan, and I tried to move it to its proper position alphabetically, would you accuse me of having an agenda to move it out of sight? What I want is for the three entities on the list of sovereign states that are not sovereign states not to be given precedence over the 200-odd entities that are sovereign states (at least de facto). Pfainuk talk 11:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no-one has chosen to explain how on earth these three constitute part of the inclusion criteria of this list, I can only conclude that my arguments are accepted and that they do not. Thus I am moving them back to the bottom of the list. Pfainuk talk 23:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We alredy answered above, you are being dense.--217.112.186.47 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We do not welcome personal attacks here: please withdraw. You will, I assume, be able to provide me with a diff in which you explain the specific role that you claim the EU, SMOM and Antarctica plays in defining how entities are included in this list, giving examples of entities that would have to be included or excluded assuming that the inclusion criteria as given in this version were used.

If you have not done so, and I cannot find any evidence that you have done, I would ask you also to withdraw the first part of your sentence. However, I would invite you to explain this. They are clearly not there to be given as examples of borderline cases to be left off because they all clearly fail the criteria. They are clearly not there to be given as examples of entities that fail the criteria because they are possibly the least representative such entities on the planet. So exactly what role do they play, and (given that all three clearly fail the criteria) how would the list have to be changed if this version was used?

In the absence of such explanation, the only conclusion available to us is that these entities do not form any meaningful part of the inclusion criteria - that they make no difference to the composition of the list - and that as such their only purpose is as an undefined list of entities not included in the list, given precedence over the list itself. Pfainuk talk 20:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We say that these are the only special cases minignfull of mentioning. You respond that we should start adding AU +.... .We say no only these three. We say in the definition, it would be strange not to mention the border line cases in the definition. You respond, that they fail the criteria so they should be removed. You are being extreamly strict with the definition, we argue that we shouldn't. The discusion has made a full circle, we are not going to agree, simply stating that you still disagree, it's not going to change the fact that we are not going to agree. And again, no it's not how discusses the longer wins. You have nothing new to restart the discussion. For the last time, you are being extremely strict, we are not extremely strict, dead end.--217.112.186.47 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Curiously, there's no record of this long back-and-forth discussion on this talk page, nor in the edit history. Curiously, I cannot remember any such discussion ever having taken place. Unless you can prove it, I'm afraid I must assume it never happened. If your intention is simply to refuse to discuss but just to edit war, I'm afraid you can only expect to be blocked and for the article to be protected or semi-protected.

You say these are borderline cases. But all three entirely unambiguously fail at least one of the five criteria stated in the article.

• Antarctica unambiguously fails three of the five criteria for inclusion (government, capacity for external relations and claim of independence), and is borderline at best on a fourth (population).
• The European Union unambiguously fails one of the five criteria for inclusion (claim of independence) and is ambiguous on a second (capacity for external relations).
• The SMOM unambiguously fails one of the five criteria for inclusion (territory).

If we accept that these are all borderline cases, then the list of borderline cases can include every inhabited island, city, town, village, farmhouse, organisation, company or club on the planet. All fifty US states, all 13 provinces and territories of Canada, and so on, are as close or closer to the borderline than the EU (since they are ambiguous on capacity for external relations and do not claim independence).

You have given no basis to say that, say, Louisiana is less meaningful to mention than the EU, and you've given us no reason to assume that this is not based solely on your own prejudices. In which case, why shouldn't the fifty states of the US, the countries of the UK or wherever else be included based on someone else's prejudices? Wikipedia does not work according to its editors' prejudices, it works - as far as possible - to objectively verifiable criteria. Yes, the inclusion criteria should be applied strictly, because the only line we can objectively draw is by interpreting the inclusion criteria - that is the whole point in having inclusion criteria. You say that we shouldn't be strict - but you do not say why we shouldn't. Again, I can only assume it's because you want the EU listed as a "sovereign state", regardless of what the inclusion criteria say.

Nonetheless, I note that I am willing to keep these three in the article. But these are not borderline cases as you claim, and therefore your argument that "it would be strange not to mention the border line cases in the definition" is irrelevant to this discussion. I note that you have still not given specific examples of entities that would, or would not, have to be included on the list assuming this version. Is it fair to assume that this is because it makes no difference? Pfainuk talk 22:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is your straw man again. Antartica, only territory that belongs to no one. EU is suigeneris. SMOM has no teritory, but is sovereign. Your examples are just administrative divisions.--217.112.186.47 (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In your response, you do not appear to dispute the fact that these three fail the inclusion criteria quite unambiguously - and thus that they are not borderline cases in any way. You have not given any example of how you assert the list would be different based on inclusion criteria that exclude the EU, SMOM and Antarctica - presumably because it would be exactly the same and because the list-before-the-list forms no meaningful part of the inclusion criteria. Given that I am willing to accept these three on the article (below the main lists), this is the more important part of the discussion and one you entirely fail.

Nonetheless, I will point out that you have not given any objective justification as to why these particular entities that fail the inclusion criteria should be included in the list-before-the-list while others that fail the inclusion criteria are not. You say that "[y]our examples are just administrative divisions". So what? In terms of the five inclusion criteria listed in the article, the EU meets three and is ambiguous on a fourth. Louisiana also meets three and is ambiguous on a fourth. Quebec meets three and is ambiguous on a fourth. The UN meets three and is ambiguous on a fourth. The three criteria met are the same in each case, and the fourth that is ambiguous is also the same for each entity.

Finally, your notion that Antarctica belongs to no-one is POV. Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the UK all claim territory on Antarctica, and several of these states recognise one another's claims. In the context of this list, including Antarctica is like including Africa or Asia - except that, given that they have permanent populations, Africa and Asia meet more of the criteria. Pfainuk talk 12:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

EU, SMOM and Antarctica, are not administrative divisions, theres something pathological with all three. This is why they are included. As you pointed out in your arguments, it's not immediately obvious why they fail the criteria, this is why they are mentioned in the inclusion criteria, all other entities fail in a standard way. It is miningfull to mention the very anomalous situations. The three are anomalous, all the rest fail in a standard way, this is why they get included and all the rest no. This is the argument. EU suigeneris, by definition, the only one in the class, SMOM sovereign but with no teritory, Antartica, they are claims but they are frozen, they don't press ahaid anymore with the claims, but didn't abandon them ither, only teritory in the world that has this status, even one peace, no one is claiming it. I'm really getting tired with your POV pushing, because what you are doing is just that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.112.186.73 (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The European Union is not a sovereign state and its not an unrecognized / disputed sovereign state there for it does NOT belong on this article at all. Please get over this, no justification has even been made for the EUs inclusion other than a debate had a year ago on this issue which is no longer valid. This article has strict criteria, the EU doesnt meat it there for it doesnt belong on the list.. it really is that simple. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

EU is suigeneris, and is mentioned as such in the definition, there is no new counsesus 3 editors wan't status quo, 3 wan't to change.--217.112.186.73 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The European Union is not a sovereign state and its not a disputed / unrecognized sovereign state. I am sorry but i have yet to see a single reason why it belongs on the article AT ALL. Inclusion underneath the main list seemed like a good compromise, but placing it above the list is clearly strongly opposed by some editors here. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What part of suigeneris you don't understand?--217.112.186.73 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The part which says suigeneris or the European Union is a sovereign state or disputed / unrecognized sovereign state. Im sorry but it really is that simply. Now when it comes to "country lists" this EU issue is more acceptable and i agree it can remain underneath the main list. However this isnt a list of countries it is a list of SOVEREIGN STATES again please explain to me where the EU is a sovereign state? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have entirely misinterpreted my comments. It is obvious that the EU, SMOM and Antarctica fail the inclusion critiera. The EU does not claim to be an independent sovereign state. So it fails. Antarctica has no government. So it fails. The SMOM has no territory. So it fails. None of this is controversial.

The only one of the three that is truly anomalous in terms of the inclusion criteria is the SMOM. The only difference - based on the inclusion criteria - between the EU and (say) the UN is the degree to which there is capacity for relations with other states. Both have this capacity - but in both cases it could be argued that the capacity derives solely from the member states acting together rather than in concert. Since neither claims to be an independent sovereign state, this is not relevant in determining whether the EU belongs on this list or not in any case.

Antarctica is a continent. The inclusion criteria don't mention the Antarctic Treaty. They mention population, government, territory, capacity to enter into relations with other states and a claim of independence. Based on the inclusion criteria, the Antarctic Treaty is irrelevant. Based on the inclusion criteria, the only difference between Antarctica and Africa is that the existence of a permanent population on Antarctica is arguable.

You keep saying the EU is sui generis, but this is irrelevant. Indeed, that it is sui generis is a good argument against inclusion because that means that - among other things - it is not a sovereign state. Note that you are, as I have said several times before, welcome to come up with a reliable source (such as an EU treaty) that defines the EU as a single sovereign state.

I finally note that you accuse me of POV pushing. This is ironic, because you're the one whose sole purpose on Wikipedia appears to be to try and make it look like the EU is a sovereign state. I would hold the same position if it were only the SMOM or Antarctica. The only difference appears to be that if it were only the SMOM or Antarctica, no-one would have argued. Pfainuk talk 00:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is enough,i alredy said my view, these three are the oddballs and should be mentioned in the definition, they are always oddballs in everything. 3 editors are of my opinion, and 3 editors are of your opinion, this is not a new consensus, so old consensus remains. You can not change the article. Convince first Lear 21 and Michael Zimmermann.--217.112.186.235 (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's impossible to communicate with people who don't respond. But that's OK, because silence implies consent. Despite your canvassing, Michael's last comment here was 4 January, and Lear's was 29 December. I don't mind discussing things with them if they choose to return - asking once again what practical difference you and they contend these three make to the inclusion criteria. But you can't use people who are not active in the discussion as a filibuster. It doesn't work like that.

Why do you think that "oddballs and should be mentioned in the definition"? You haven't justified this position in any way, you've just stated it. And in any case, those sovereign states that don't meet the inclusion criteria - and there are fifty fairly prominent examples - surely have rather more claim to oddball status on a list of sovereign states than those entities that are not sovereign states but that users happen to like. Pfainuk talk 11:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not willing to accept the precise version proposed by 217.112 last night because I think it needs to be much clearer that these are not sovereign states and do not claim to be sovereign states. We must not imply that the EU, Antarctica and the SMOM are sovereign states. Particularly in the case of the EU, this is necessary to maintain NPOV. That's not to say we can't work something out on a similar basis, but it should be clear almost without reading the text that the EU, SMOM and Antarctica are not sovereign states for the purposes of this list.

We also need to define how it is decided what entries go on to this small list at the bottom and which do not. The reasoning must be stated in the article. The vague comment I've left isn't really good enough because without some reasonably concrete definition of "noteworthy" and "significant measure of sovereignty" these are far from the only three entities that could be included - and in any case, Antarctica doesn't have a "significant measure of sovereignty" - it has less sovereignty than most villages.

My second issue is that the EU entry gave a bit of an essay on the precise extent of EU policy. IMO this went into far too much detail - we have the article European Union and people are quite able to refer to it. We only have entries that long on the main list when dealing with dependent territories, and the EU entry did not include any such list. Pfainuk talk 13:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to fully engage in this discussion, but I agree with Pfainuk and Britishwatcher that no good reason has been provided why the European Union should not be placed towards the bottom of this list together with Antartica, the SMOM etc. And for the record, I'm not British. sephia karta | di mi 14:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What about removing "Other states" and "Unlisted noteworthy entities"? They all fail the criteria.--217.112.178.76 (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The "other states" generally do meet the criteria. They all have governments, populations, territories, capacity for relations with other states (indeed, most have some recognition) and all claim indepedence. They tick all the boxes. They just don't meet the sixth criterion at the top of the "Internationally recognized sovereign states" - that of general international recognition.

I have no problem with removing the "unlisted noteworthy entities", which do fail the criteria. Pfainuk talk 17:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So, "Other states" fail the criteria. This is what you just said.--217.112.186.83 (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I said the opposite. According to the article, an entity must meet all of the following five criteria to be included:

• Population
• Territory
• Government
• Capacity to enter into relations with other states (international recognition being a useful, but not essential, indicator of this)
• Declaration of independence

All of the "other states" meet these criteria, with the possible exception of the Palestinian Territories as discussed in a section above.

Now, the list does split those entities with general international recognition from those without. But that isn't mentioned in the criteria for inclusion because it isn't used to determine whether an entity is included, only to determine which side of the division of the list the entity belongs on.

But if we're going to discuss this, let's discuss this. Your new version does not solve the issues I raised - the essay on the EU, the lack of definition of what is included. It does make it clearer that these are not sovereign states, but in a way that fails MOS standards WP:MOSBOLD and WP:HEAD - and generally looks rather unprofessional. I've removed that section altogether per your earlier suggestion. Pfainuk talk 00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pfainuk, sephia karta et al. These three are better placed in a section at the bottom. --PBS (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Mount Athos

Is there any particular reason why Mount Athos is not mentioned at the Greece entry? The List of autonomous areas by country article does mention it. Kószab (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Abkhazia & S. Ossetia

Abkhazia and S. Ossetia do not fit the qualification to be under the sovereign state section, they, like Kosovo, Transinistira, etc. should be listed under the other state column.

-IkonicDeath

Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transdneistr and Kosovo are all treated in the same way - as de facto sovereign states that do not have general recognition. There are pointers to them in the first list, but their main entries are in the second. Pfainuk talk 22:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of sovereign states

Resolved

 – Antarctica reference has been fixed. Pfainuk talk 13:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of sovereign states's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "cia":

• From Algeria: "''CIA World Factbook''". Cia.gov. Retrieved 2008-11-24.
• From Guernsey: "CIA World Factbook". CIA. Retrieved 2007-12-01.
• From Andorra: "CIA World Factbook entry: Andorra".
• From Ukraine: "Ukraine". CIA World Factbook. December 13, 2007. Retrieved 2007-12-24.
• From Earth: Staff (2008-07-24). "World". The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 2008-08-05.
• From Turkmenistan: Turkmenistan, CIA World Factbook. Retrieved on 2008-12-26.
• From Slovakia: "Slovakia". The World Factbook. CIA. 2007. Retrieved April 26 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)
• From Russia: The World Factbook. "CIA". Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 2007-12-26.
• From Lebanon: CIA, the World Factbook (2006). "Lebanon". Retrieved 7 November 2006.
• From Guam: "Guam," CIA World Factbook, April 17, 2007, Retrieved April 19, 2007.
• From North Korea: "Korea, North". CIA World Factbook. 2007. Retrieved 2007-08-01. North Korea itself does not disclose figures.
• From Burundi: CIA - The World Factbook - Burundi CIA. Retrieved June 8, 2008.
• From Hong Kong: CIA World Factbook
• From Cape Verde: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cv.html
• From Argentina: CIA - The World Factbook - Argentina
• From Mexico: "Mexico" CIA World Factbook. 2007. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency
• From Taiwan: "The World Factbook". CIA. 2006-05-03. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• From Antarctica: "Antarctica - The World Factbook". United States Central Intelligence Agency. 2007-03-08. Retrieved 2007-03-14.
• From Tables of historical exchange rates to the USD: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2076.html
• From Guatemala: "Guatemala". World Factbook. CIA. Retrieved 2007-12-17.
• From Georgia (country): Georgia, from CIA World Factbook
• From Cocos (Keeling) Islands: CIA World Factbook
• From Israel: "Israel". The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency. 2007-06-19. Retrieved 2007-07-20.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli occupations

Jayjg was right when he writes in the edit history "um, actually, the occupations are indeed "internationally recognized" - it's Israel that insists it is not occupying" of this edit. The occupations are internationally recognised as military occupations the community does not recognise Israel's unilateral annexation of some of the areas. see Military occupation#Disputed to be a military occupation by the nation of military dominance in an area for more on this. --PBS (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Move "Criteria for inclusion" to below the two lists

Moved from the section [#Positioning of EU, SMOM and so on]]

I agree with Pfainuk, sephia karta et al. These three are better placed in a section at the bottom. I would go further and move the "criteria for inclusion" to the bottom as well and make the "Unlisted noteworthy entities" a sub section of that. The criteria for inclusion is not much more than a large footnote, and If I were printing this out or linking to it from another site then I would not want that information cluttering up the head of the list because I would have followed the URL to see a list of sovereign states, and not a list of what are not sovereign states! As is at the moment, I would have a page and a half of hard copy at the start of the article which contains information of marginal interest to those who want a list of sovereign states. --PBS (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll go for that. The MOS says that inclusion criteria have to go in the lead (per WP:STAND#Lead and selection criteria), but I think in practice that, provided that a basic outline goes in the lead, we aren't IAR-ing too much by putting the detail below the list. The sort of basic outline I was thinking of is something like "sovereign states that claim independence, whether internationally recognised or not, based on the criteria outlined in the section #Criteria for inclusion". Pfainuk talk 10:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The section is not the lead, but there is no reason why there should not be an internal link at the start of the list

see the section "criteria for inclusion" for the criteria used to determine the contents of this list.

I would also move the sentence "The listing or placement of any entity in this article is not meant to imply an official position in any dispute." from the section "criteria for inclusion" to below the above wording at the start of the list.

Any objections to theses changes? --PBS (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No objections - sounds sensible. sephia karta | di mi 19:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Pfainuk talk 19:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)