Talk:List of sovereign states

Palestine

Wikipedia says that 131 UN member states recognize the State of Palestine, plus the SADR. the 131th is Granada. so 132 states must recognize Palestine.

Ybgursey (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Now it's 138.

http://news.yahoo.com/un-vote-recognizes-state-palestine-us-objects-222714646.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.137.78 (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's still 132 - as is clearly stated in the article you reference. There were 138 votes in favour of recognising Palestine at the UN, but 6 of those votes were from countries which haven't yet formally recognised Palestine themselves, though they may well be in the process of doing so. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 02:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not true. The 138 that voted in favour are not the 132 recognizers and 6 non-recognizers. ~18 of the recognizers voted "abstain", one voted "against". ~28 of the non-recognizers voted "in favour". Japinderum (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Then change 131 to 132

Ybgursey (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The SADR is not a UN member. So while there are 132 states which recognize Palestine, only 131 UN member states do. SiBr₄ (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 resolution text says "to date, 132 States Members of the United Nations have accorded recognition to the State of Palestine," - so maybe there is an unknown 133th recognition or they didn't counted properly (e.g. included SADR in the count or did some other error). Japinderum (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Flag

More flag are wrong2.194.205.212 (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Libya

Currently, the description of Libya still mentions the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the fact that several states still recognize it as the legitimate government. Do we have current sources to back this up? And even if we do, does this really belong here? There are many cases where the government changes (partially or fully), and the new authority is not unanimously recognized (ie Syria, Mali). The point of the description is to explain "the extent to which a state's sovereignty is recognised internationally". Everyone recognizes Libya's sovereignty, they just (might) disagree on who the legitimate government is. The cases of the Chinas and the Koreas are different because there are RS which argue that these are two separate de facto independent states. The GSPLAJ exists only on paper. TDL (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it's even worth mentioning the GSPLAJ at this point. Not a very functional government. CMD (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Definition of states

The article in the intro clearly defines the definition of what is on the list. What is a state then? It is an entity, and if it is not, then the likes of kosovo, etc are not for this list. Using WP's own Foreign relations of the Holy See (and not Vatican) as well as the definition already on this page itself the institution of state is that of the Holy See. The Vatican is defined seperately on the said page itself. It is also the UN member (as cited on this page) as the Holy See. Quite ignorant and laughable to say this is not a list of entities but a list of states (and that too in contradiction to what the page defines it as). What is that differnece? Blind reverting, it seems?(Lihaas (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)).

Instead of attacking me, why don't you try re-reading the Criteria for inclusion section (including footnotes). We explicitly don't include non-state sovereign entities (ie the Sovereign Military Order of Malta). Also check out the Vatican's official website: "Its nature as a sovereign State distinct from the Holy See is universally recognized under international law." Vatican City is the sovereign state. Do you have any sources saying that the Holy See is a sovereign state? TDL (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Table

The table appears broken to me. The grey bars indicating UN membership etc. are clustered at the bottom of the table, even without sorting. I can't figure out when/why this happened. CMD (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

bugzilla:41886 and or bugzilla:41889 ? -- KTC (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this as well about a week ago. I went back to the original diff where they were first inserted, and the sorting wasn't working even there so it's definitely related to some bug in the wiki software. TDL (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I tweaking the table, so the default sorting should be fine now. TDL (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestine moved

So, what do we have now? Palestine with partial recognition and no territory under its control is in the 'higher tier group 1 of better and regular states' while the Cook Islands and Niue (without recognition problems and controlling all of their territory) and Kosovo (with recognition similar to that of Palestine and controlling almost all of its own territory) are in the 'lower tier group 2 of lesser other states'. Splendid. Continue to ignore the self contradiction and other issues I asked about here, here and here. Japinderum (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is now in the main group because it became a UN observer state a few days ago. If it was put back in the "non-members" group, Vatican City should also be moved. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not that I agree with the exact wording, but the "main group" is defined as "membership within the United Nations system" (see lede). Membership, not observership. United Nations system, not only the United Nations Organization.

So, Vatican is there because of its membership in numerous UN specialized agencies (part of the UN system). Palestine should've been there since 2011 because of its membership in UNESCO (part of the UN system). Kosovo should be there since 2009 because of its membership in IMF and WBG (part of the UN system). Cook Islands and Niue should be there because of their membership in numerous UN specialized agencies (part of the UN system). The whole long debate Nightw mentions below was to avoid the arbitrary "UN members and observers vs. others" division that was present in this list before that. Now, you say it's kept despite clearly defined otherwise in the lede. Japinderum (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Drop the stick, Alinor. Or even "Japinderum" -- the fact that you've linked to three archived discussions where multiple editors repeatedly explained to you that the sorting debate was settled is a clear indication that you are not listening. I don't think anybody has said that the current setup is perfect, but after years of discussion this is what has resulted from fair compromise. Get over it. Nightw 04:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Nightw, again with this Alnoir? I thought you finished with that long time ago.

The current setup is not simply "imperfect" - it contains self-contradictions! Nobody "explained" those at the links I give here - nobody even responded. For example the "Lead contradicts table" wrong counting 193-2-11 when actually there are 198 members of UN System organizations.

Other self-contradictions that nobody answered about are items 8-11. The rest of the points are about POV-pushing and you can label them part of your so-called compromise (but still nobody provided link to where this specific decision was taken).

As you are well aware the problem is in the poorly defined "UN something" criteria, that's actually an attempt to hide the old arbitrary "UN members and observers vs. others". Japinderum (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

193 isn't members of UN systems, it's members of the UN. If it wasn't clear to you that there was a difference between those before, perhaps the recent escapades of Palestine, where they failed to get UN membership yet obtained membership in the UN system, have made that clear to you. As Nightw has mentioned, every time you've brought this up, the other editors have disagreed. The time to step back was a long time ago. CMD (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

CMD, the article is quite clear about "membership within the United Nations system" (post debate text), not about "membership and observership in the United Nations Organization" (the previous arbitrary status quo). What's not clear is why the text doesn't match the numbers. Japinderum (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the lack of response to your second and third attempts was due to the fact that you'd already had it explained to you in the first attempt. I agreed to acknowledging your clean start under the condition that you not feign ignorance on old debates or use the new account to resurrect old discussions for more endless rounds of debate (like you did on the Diplomacy article). The link you're after is the last archive under "Discussion of criteria" (in the box on the top right). Nightw 13:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any explanation or answers to these questions. I see only editors avoiding those. I don't propose any changes - I simply ask editors who support the changes done already to explain what they actually mean, because those contain self-contradictions. And there is no clean start, dirty old account or whatever that you refer to. Japinderum (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Then we might as well press ahead with a discussion - though I also doubt that the status quo will change. But a consensus can change and I see no reason not to have a discussion to see if it has. Outback the koala (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, so will somebody explain the self-contradictions I refer to above? Japinderum (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

UN System members

How many states have "membership within the United Nations system"? Japinderum (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

198. All 193 regular UN members + Cook Islands, Kosovo, Niue, Palestine, Vatican. --maxval (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, so why isn't the table sorted in that way when clicking on the "membership within the United Nations system" column (see items 7-9)? Why isn't that stated in the sentence "The membership within the United Nations system column divides the states into two categories: 198 and 8 others" (see item 11 and here) - currently the text is different? Japinderum (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the text has to be changed. --maxval (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"Membership in the United Nations system" is a very vague phrase. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This is why the current set up is, and always has been, a bad idea. Break the list into two groups: 1)the 193 members of the UN itself and 2)anybody else. UN members + UN observers is not a natural group as there are two different criteria that lead to a state being counted in it. To use a biological term, it's a polyphyletic group. --Khajidha (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not polyphyletic, it's groups that have been voted on in the UN. That's a clear clade. CMD (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The current criteria is not that, but "membership within the United Nations system" and that includes not only the United Nations Organization, but also others such as UNESCO, WHO, etc. Japinderum (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the current setup is bad idea (for different reasons - see above sections), but having "UN members vs anybody else" is not better - in gives undue weight to UN membership - contradicting official UN sources that we have describing that the signs for general acceptance in the international community are different from that. Japinderum (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not vague - it's quite clear - membership in one of the UN system organizations. Those organizations are listed at [1] and [2]. It's a separate issue whether exactly this phrase should be utilized or the correct one that is found in international treaties and other official sources - see Vienna formula. Japinderum (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the text after "The membership within the United Nations system column divides the states into two categories:" should be changed into "198 states with membership and 8 other states." (and the table ordered accordingly). Any other opinions? Japinderum (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Defining the term "membership in the UN system" as meaning "membership in at least one body affiliated with the UN" makes some sense, but it's not a definition I've seen commonly utilized, and therefore I don't think it's necessarily the best way of organizing this article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

One question is the description in the intro text, the second question is the Division of a table into two parts. In the intro text appropriate to complement the information on the States that are members of the UN sp. agencies. For example: The membership within the United Nations system column divides the states into four categories: 193 UN member states, 2 observer states in the UN, 3 states which are members of some UN Specialized Agencies, and 8 other states.

Division of table? Personally I prefer united table. Because here is not consensus for it in the long term, then I support the maintenance of the existing structure of the table. (Membership in the WB doesn't have comparable weight, or a comparable impact on the status of the entity in the international system, in comparison with the membership in the United Nations. I do not agree with the table dividing 198:8.) Jan CZ (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

As Jan CZ said, the long term consensus, despite everyone having their own quibbles with it, was for the current table. The text should reflect the table reached in this consensus. CMD (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Current structure of the table (two parts, 195: 11) is under the membership in United Nations. I think that there is a long-term consensus for it.
• Intro text describes the differences only in accordance with the content of the columns (not of two parts of table). Description for the third column (sovereignty disputes column) is without problems (190: 16). A description for the second column (membership within the United Nations system column) is not entirely correct. Jan CZ (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, it's not "body affiliated with the UN", but UN System (title for a group of specific organizations utilized by many sources). I agree that "membership in UN system" is not commonly utilized criteria for general acceptance in the international community. The criteria commonly utilized in international treaties and organizations is the Vienna formula. Alas, after long discussion editors here managed to push trough the masking of Vienna formula as "membership in the UN system" - and the discussion here is not about changing that "way of organizing this article" (which I agree is far from best - but it seems everybody dislikes it for a different reason and that's why it stays - lack of agreement what's "best"), but about correcting the self-contradiction in the status quo. Japinderum (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

CMD, the long discussion was not about arbitrary cherry-picking and ordering-by-hand of the table trough compilation of personal opinions and then to stick it together with whatever weaselish/arbitrary criteria the result matches. It was about deciding on sorting criteria to use that's WP:V, notable and broadly utilized in the real world official diplomatic acts and documents of the international community. After very long discussion the two criteria selected were "membership within the United Nations System" (not only the United Nations Organization - criteria to not be UN-exclusive was important for taking the decision) and "sovereignty disputes". The table is result of the application of these sorting criteria to the list of sovereign states (already filled according to the inclusion criteria). Not vice versa. Japinderum (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Jan CZ, there is some misunderstanding. Nobody proposes dividing the table. What I said is that the ordering (inside the single list) should correspond to the lede description of the criteria, e.g. if the lede text is "the first of the methods/criteria is membership in Your-Favorite-Church resulting in 177 members and 107 non-members; the second of the methods...", then the order in the table (in default sort and sort-by-YFC membership) should be "YFC-members-with-A, YFC-members-with-B,...Z, YFC-non-members-with-A, B,...Z"; I prefer the default sort to be alphabetic (NPOV), but that's a separate issue.

The lede sorting criteria description text is not separate issue from the table ordering - they are the same - for both criteria (UN System and Sovereignty dispute) we have "The table column description divides the states into two categories:..."

The weight of different issues (memberships, disputes, etc.) regarding the general acceptance of an entity in the international community was the core part of the long discussion resulting in the current status quo. UN, UNESCO, IMF, WBG, FAO, ICAO, IFAD, IMO, ITU, UPU, WMO, WIPO, WHO, IAEA are part of the UN System, that's why their member states should be included in the "UN System" part of "UN System vs. others". Observership status to the various UN System bodies (including the UNGA), should be noted in the table, but it's not part of the sorting criteria (that point was also an important for taking the decision in the long discussion - the criteria is membership in the UN System, not observership). Japinderum (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Drift

As the discussion above drifted somewhat, so let's see what we have. After long discussion (check in the archives) the sorting criteria for the default view and first criteria column was established as "Membership within the United Nations System". Membership, not observership. United Nations System, not United Nations Organization or United Nations General Assembly. The proposal here is not to change that sorting criteria.

Currently the lede sorting criteria description text contains a self-contradiction, because after the "The membership within the United Nations system column divides the states into two categories:" it doesn't say "198 states with membership in at least one UN System body and 8 other states.", but instead mentions UNO members and observers - contrary to the defined sorting criteria. That should be corrected. The other correction is in the UN System column where Holy See text should be "Member of multiple UN System bodies" or "Member of multiple UN System bodies and UN observer" and accordingly for the rest in similar situation. Currently the UN System membership column text doesn't mention UN System memberships at all, but only UNO observership. Japinderum (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the solution is NOT to divide the column at all, and list all the states is alphabetic order. And in this case in the column (that will be called "Status in the United Nations system" or something like that) there will be an explanation for every entry: UN member, UN observer, member of X, not a member of any organization belonging to the UN system. --maxval (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I proposed that at Benefits of alphabetic ordering and I still support it, but let's keep such proposals elsewhere and focus the discussion here on correcting the self-contradiction in the status quo. Japinderum (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody has a reason to disagree with the correction explained in my previous comment? Japinderum (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your proposed correction. The table breakdown and the column breakdown are out of joint. No one has explained why UN Observership is basically being treated the same as UN Membership. These are two different things. Either move the Observers to the second portion of the table or move any state with any UN affiliation (Cook Islands, Kosovo, Niue, Taiwan) to the first portion of the table. --Khajidha (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Japinderum (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Japinderum, just because you've opened an nth discussion on this issue does not mean you can now go ahead and make whatever change what you want, especially given that there was not agreement in the main section above. This refusal to drop your stick is quite disruptive. CMD (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody voiced disagreement and Khajidha voiced agreement. Also, nobody has given any reason for the contradiction between the criteria utilized "Membership in the United Nations System" and the text I changed (with one that isn't contradicting the criteria). Japinderum (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody voiced disagreement? You know very well by now that others disagree, don't play dumb. There's no reason to expect them to respond to another one of your campaigns. Furthermore, Jan CZ said above "I support the maintenance of the existing structure of the table...I do not agree with the table dividing 198:8." It could not be more explicit. "Membership within the United Nations system" is just the column title. It's described as a column that "divides the states into two categories: 193 member states and two observer states in the United Nations,[1] and 11 other states." We can call it "Column 1" if you prefer. CMD (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Jan CZ hasn't replied to my explanation in the above thread about what you quoted.

"Membership within the United Nations system" is not just the column title - it's the longsought consensus (as you call it) result for sorting criteria. As I said - the long discussion and resulting consensus is about defining a sorting criteria, not about arbitrary assembled/cherry-picked groups of states (the same that we had before the discussion). Japinderum (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

When will you understand that just because someone has not replied does not mean they agree with you? The long discussion and consensus included draft tables, which we all viewed. Lawyering about it won't help. CMD (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the status quo that the long discussion sought to correct was the lack of defined sorting criteria and the utilization instead of an arbitrary assembled groups of states. Now you are lawyering about utilizing the same arbitrary approach in reverse and contrary to the result of the long discussion.

The long discussion is about selection of sorting criteria. Two criteria were selected: "Membership within the United Nations system" and "Sovereignty dispute". The draft tables are result of the implementation of those criteria - not vice versa. Japinderum (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

CMD, I'll wait somewhat more for you to explain the reasons to keep the self-contradicting version and to explain why do you think the article should deviate from the longsought consensus to use "Membership within the United Nations System" as one of the sorting criteria. Japinderum (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Japinderum, the consensus was explicitly for "Two categories: UN members + observers, Others". Explicitly. CMD (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That's one of many polls in the process and is only one of the tools and venues utilized for guiding the discussion. As you can see even at the link you gave - other editors explained it clearly: "UN members + observers" is the pre-discussion arbitrary grouping lacking a defined criteria. Afterwards it was decided one of the sorting criteria to be "Membership within the United Nations System" - and that's written in the current status quo. Japinderum (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying that you think the final consensus of that debate was misread? If that is what you are saying, then please go ask some uninvolved admins to review it or something. If I can remember correctly, you were inactive at that time, but editors agreed that the years of discussion needed to come to a lasting end and that a final poll would determine the permanent outcome. The poll was done, and Chip has shown you the link to the result (which most editors would describe as a firm consensus). If you disagree with that consensus, tough. If you see a different consensus, then ask someone to review the discussion. If you think the words "membership within the United Nations system" is conflicting with how it is actually being sorted, then reword it. Maybe we forgot to reword that when the table was changed last year. Nightw 14:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Featured list candidate?

It's high time this list take another go at Wikipedia:Featured lists again. I would like some input from other editors first. If there is positive feedback in about a week, especially from regular editors, then we should pull the trigger. Outback the koala (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As the editor who nominated List of countries for a successful FL all the way back in 2006, I would love for the current incarnation to be back at FL, but unfortunately I believe the list as it stand have no chance of being promoted given current standard. The reason for opposition the last time this list went up at FLC have not been addressed. Nominating it now would just result in a SNOW of opposition citing the lead being too short and the table not meeting accessibility. -- KTC (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a real shame. We've been over and over about making a lead - moving a section to the top and other suggestions.Is there no way to change their rigidly structured system. The accessiblity part, ie colour blindness, etc..., could be dealt with by us. A simple coloured legend chart exokaining the meanings of red and beige would be a simple first step. In my view such a legend would take up needless space, but maybe other do not think so. Outback the koala (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposition for a new country list

Please see at User:Maxval/temp! --maxval (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I like your list very much. It makes total sense to me, and seems to be very clear. It can still be sorted by "UN membership", but it also allows alphabetical listing of all de facto states, regardless of UN status. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 10:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Our current list already allows alphabetical listing regardless of UN status. I fully encourage any editors who want to present all the states equally here to spend some time editing the articles of the disputed states, with this equality in mind. CMD (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Table format

The rows for some countries lack border lines separating them from adjacent rows, and I can find no obvious pattern eplaining which do and which don't. Anyone knows? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Try scrolling down past them so they're out of the screen, and then scrolling back up to them. Doing this adds horizontal lines for me. Witchcraft or something. CMD (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Cook Islands/Niue Issue Resume

I want to resume this be cause of the similarity of the situation in New Zealand to those in Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK, in which the Sovereign State (or the Realm) is composed of several independent, but not sovereign countries. In the case of NZ, proper NZ/Cook Islands/Niue/Tokelau/Ross Dependency, in the case of Denmark, proper Denmark/Faroe Islands/Greenland, in the case of the Netherlands, proper Netherlands/Aruba/Curacao/Sint Maarten, in the case of the UK, England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland. In all cases, the "proper" regions is directly governed by the government (with the addition of Northern Ireland in the case of the UK, and Tokelau/Ross Dependency in the case of New Zealand), while the other regions have their own governments. This is why on the Vietnamese wikipedia page, they include Wales and Scotland, however not others.

So my proposal is that, if we continue to include Cook Islands and Niue in the list, be sure to include Curacao, Aruba, Sint Maarten, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Scotland and Wales also in the list.

Thank you. Phanthanhtom (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a list of sovereign states, not a list of all entities called "countries". CI and Niue are included because some think they are sovereign states. The Dutch, Danish and British constituent countries are definitely not. SiBr₄ (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a very big difference between Niue, CI and Curacao, Aruba, Sint Maarten, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Scotland and Wales. The first two are quasi-sovereign, but the other are not. I see no similarity. --maxval (talk) 09:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)