Talk:Dependent territory

Denmark

I don't see why Denmark (Greenland and the Faroe Islands) is listed here. Greenland and the Faroe Islands do not hold a special position recognized by international treaty or agreement like Åland. They have autonomy through devolution similar to Scotland and as such they are subnational units more than dependencies. Kisualk (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is Scotland not considered to have unique autonomy?Kisualk (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Because they are entirely self-governing, unlike Scotland. See here: [1] - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Page not found? What does "entirely self-governing" mean? They are self-governing in the same way as Scotland Kisualk (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Jan Mayen and Palmyra Atoll

In his massive revision to this article Chipmunkdavis removed both Palmyra Atoll and Jan Mayen from the USA and Norway listings. However, I have since found that the following two sources list each of these entities as 'Dependencies' and 'Dependent Areas' respectively: [2], [3]. Additionally, Jan Mayen is listed as a part of the 'territories of Norway' here: [4]. Should these two entries be restored? I have noticed that the table for France has also now had its Overseas department and regions delisted as well, but this is less problematic as these areas are equivalent in status to that of Hawaii. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The Britain and France entries were reversions of recent changes. There is no definitive list for these sorts of things. The US sources are useful and have been taken into consideration in the past. You'll note there are other entries in them that we also don't include here. (The EU source isn't working.) I included an explanation of Palmyra Atoll in the text above the US table, something similar may be useful for Jan Mayen. The French overseas regions are also similarly noted in the prose. CMD (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

True, the state.gov source lists several entries that are not included here (such as spratley islands and western sahara). However, the world factbook has precisely NO other entries listed within it that are excluded from this list EXCEPT for Jan Mayen and Palmyra Atoll. Additionally, the Jan Mayen entry is backed up by content in the EU source (see here if you are not able to access it in your region: [5]). - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

In fact we have even listed everything here that the state.gov page lists, with the exception of the Paracel Islands, the Spratley Islands, Western Sahara, Jan Mayen, and Palmyra Atoll. Are you really suggesting we should equate Jan Mayen, and Palmyra Atoll with those three entries? Parcel Islands, Spratley Islands, and Western Sahara are areas with massive international disputes and competing claims.
Note: The french internal stuff (French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Reunion) is also included but it is explicitly stated within that they basically shouldn't be and are only included for the convenience of the reader. Antartica is listed as an entry (and we include this as well), however, we have broken it down into it's individual claims/subdivisions.
So I ask you, what makes Jan Mayen and Palmyra Atoll special so that they are excluded from our list? To my eyes the sources clearly equate them with our other entries. Why Parcel Islands, Spratley Islands, Western Sahara, and Antartica are included as well in this one reliable source is odd to me, but you have to be joking if you compare the sovereignty status of these four situations to anything else listed in the source. The dependency relationship of Jan Mayen and Palmyra Atoll to their respective states is clear based on these RSs, and these territories are not at all in dispute. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Those sources happen to be wrong at least in the case of Palmyra. Palmyra is part of the U.S., having been incorporated into the country as part of the Territory of Hawaii, according to American law. TFD (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously telling me that these sources directly from the US government and the EU are just "wrong"? - Wiz9999 (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The Department of the Interior website says, "On April 30, 1900, Hawaii (including Palmyra Atoll) became an incorporated U.S. territory....So, when Hawaii (excluding Palmyra Atoll) was admitted as one of the several States, Palmyra remained and continues to remain an incorporated U.S. territory."[6] As explained in ft 202 of Defining Status: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States Territorial Relations, incorporated means to be part of the U.S., according to Downes v. Bidwell (1901).

According to Western Europe 2003, p. 518, Jan Meyan "was made an integral part of the Kingdom of Norward by the Jan Mayen Act of 1930....During the Second World War Jan Mayen remained the only part of Norway under Norwegian control."[7]

TFD (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It's worth considering what the sources are for. Both the US and EU are simple reference lists/guides to go along with their foreign office publications. They're not meant to be constitutional guides. In the EU list, they've clearly included entries to explain each ISO code. CMD (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that Palmyra Atoll is not an "incorporated territory" that status is clear, what is also clear is that the US considers both of these territories "dependent" territories. To suggest that being incorporated means that the territory is NOT dependent is WP:SYNTH and I will tolerate it no longer. I am restoring both entries to this list and Palmyra Atoll to the bullet on the list of sovereign states list as well. Unless either one of you can provide a credible reliable source that specifically states these are not dependencies they will remain on this list. Do not revert this. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

We have clear and reliable sources, with texts, saying these territories are integral parts of their respective countries. This is the main subject of this article, as noted clearly in this article's introduction. This is a specific definition, which may not be the same as what is included in the the source lists provided. This point is made clear by the fact that all of the lists are different, and some of these include entries that are also not included here. CMD (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This article defines dependent territories as "politically outside the controlling state's integral area." Since, as you agree, Palmyra is an incorporated (i.e., integral) part of the U.S, it does not belong in the article. TFD (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

After reading the entirety of the GAO.gov document, provided by Chipmunkdavis in his edit on the list of sovereign states article, there is nothing inside of it that states that Palmyra Atoll is NOT a dependency. There is plenty of mention of how the constitution applies "in full" to this territory in various parts of the document, and a sentence and a footnote on page 47 that mentions how it is an "incorporated territory". However, I repeat that the applicability of the constitution and the "incorporated" status is absolutely not in dispute. It is widely known, and also correctly stated as such within this article. What I have been repeatedly disputing with you is that the use of these two concepts to infer that the territory is NOT a dependency is WP:SYNTH, and until you address this issue directly or find a highly reliable source that states directly that Palmyra Atoll is not a dependency it will remain as such within this article. This has nothing to do with these territories being "integral parts" of their administrating states, but everything to do with these territories being "dependent" lands of their administrating states. The two terms are not equivalent. The fact that the lede states that dependencies "remains politically outside the controlling state's integral area" is a completely unsourced statement that is never stated in any of the five references used in the lede (and yes, I checked each of these using archived copies of these pages as all but one have subsequently been removed from the web). The use of the "integral" term should thus be removed from this document's lede as it is also unsourced.
An interesting side note about the GAO.gov article is that it mentions on page 37 that federal tax is something that is imposed at the discretion of the federal government, of which it currently chooses to not impose on the insular areas (including Palmyra), meaning that this distinguishes it from the district of columbia in a somewhat transient manner. Additionally, and perhaps more intriguingly, it also states on page 30 & 31 that right to vote in presidential elections was specifically granted to the federal district of columbia, but this was never done for any of the insular areas (including Palmyra). Meaning that the constitution does not apply in full with regards to this specific 'voting rights' aspect to the territory (again distinguishing it from DC). However, the courts have repeatedly found that the constitution does apply in full to Palmyra, thus contradicting this circumstance. It is something that could potentially be legally challenged, but practically this will not be done since no one actually lives on Palmyra, just an interesting legal contradiction. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't find a definition for dependent territory. However, Webster's defines "dependent" as "subject to another's jurisdiction//a dependent territory". So it would not include areas such as Palmyra which are part of the U.S. Do you have another definition? What separates a dependent territory from any other type of territory? How can a territory that is part of the U.S. also be a dependency of the U.S.?

The reference to insular areas on page 37 of the GAO report is to "the five insular areas," which does not include Palmyra. As the laws of the U.S. apply everywhere in the U.S., income tax law would apply to anyone who took up residence in Palmyra.

The original U.S. constitution only provided members of both houses of Congress to be elected from states. No territory inside the United States has ever elected members of Congress, but no one would say that Arizona was a dependent territory before it became the 48th state in 1912. No one claimed for example that Barry Goldwater (b. 1909) was not born in the U.S.

The courts have never in fact found that the constitution does not apply in full in Palmyra.

TFD (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

What separates a dependent territory from any other type of territory? THAT right there is the fundamental question! There doesn't seem to be very good criteria for this, but to assume "integrated" as the sole criteria for this is absolutely not reflected in any sourced material. Which is what I have been saying from the beginning here.
The reference to insular areas on page 37 of the GAO report is to "the five insular areas," which does not include Palmyra. I see nowhere that this is stated as such. The statement is made within the "Five Insular Areas - An Update" chapter, yes, but it is under the section: "Applicability of Constitutional Provisions to U.S. Insular Areas", of which the very first section is: "Fundamental Constitutional Rights Apply to All Territories", the latter sections all follow on from this first subsection. However, this was just an aside comment I was making anyway, it doesn't really relate to issue at hand.
The original U.S. constitution only provided members of both houses of Congress to be elected from states. No territory inside the United States has ever elected members of Congress, but no one would say that Arizona was a dependent territory before it became the 48th state in 1912. No one claimed for example that Barry Goldwater (b. 1909) was not born in the U.S. I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this, as I was talking about presidential elections specifically and this had nothing to do with congress.
The courts have never in fact found that the constitution does not apply in full in Palmyra. I agree completely, that is what I have been saying. The exceptions of taxes and voting are interesting, as they contradict this ruling, but they clearly would not hold up against the court rulings of the constitution applying in full.
Definitions of dependent territory/dependent:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dependent - subject to another's jurisdiction // a dependent territory, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dependent_territory - A territory (such as a country, province, colony, etc.) controlled by another, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dependent - subordinate; subject: a dependent territory, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dependent - [nothing on territory].
Also, I will now be listing this at WP:DRN (here), as I keep getting reverted by the both of you despite the violation of WP:SYNTH and I am now of the belief that we will simply not agree without some kind of mediation. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I still do not understand your definition. Why don't you consider Hawaii or DC or Staten Island or Death Valley or DC to be dependent terrtories in not because they are part of the U.S.?

Citizens living in D.C. may vote for electors for president because of the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution of 1960 which provided them with that right. Previously only residents of states could do that and the right has never been extended to territories of the United States, including Arizona until it became a state.

TFD (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I still do not understand your definition. Why don't you consider Hawaii or DC or Staten Island or Death Valley or DC to be dependent terrtories in not because they are part of the U.S.? It is quite simple really ... They are NOT SOURCED as such! Everything else we have on this list IS IN THE SOURCES as being "dependent areas"/"dependent territories"/"dependencies" (including Jan Mayen and Palmyra Atoll). - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC) edited on 01:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

With regards to your second statement, that is my point exactly! DC residents have the right to vote for president because of the twenty third amendment. Hypothetical Palmyra Atoll residents do not have this right, making that territory constitutionally different to DC (despite the court rulings). However, I would not expect such a situation to last long were Palmyra to suddenly gain inhabitants, as the courts have been clear about the constitution applying in full there. It doesn't affect any part of this discussion really, it is just an interesting observation I am making. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

How do you know that your sources are using the same definition as this article and as each other or are accurate? That can only be determined with secondary sources that provide definitions and cite sources. Or do you suggest that the lead should be changed to say, "This is a list of all countries that have been described in at least one tertiary source as dependent territories? (Incidentally, no need to repeat what I write, I can read my own postings myself.) ::Incidentally, the constitution makes no provisions for any territory other than states and D.C. to provide electors, whether or not those territories lie within the U.S. No territory has ever been allowed to choose electors.

Anyway, the sources that say Palmyra is incorporated are better than the sources that say it is a dependent territory, and they are backed up with legal opinion including a Supreme Court judgment.

TFD (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

But this still has not addressed the WP:SYNTH issues. Your claim of your source being "better" (a very subjective/POV claim I will point out) has little to do with equating the concept of "incorporated" to that of "dependent". The relevancy of the definition/criteria of "dependent territory" that each RS is using to select entries on their respective lists is less important. As the RS's are RS's, and we MUST take their word for it and assume they are accurate, unless directly contradicted by another RS (of which the provided RS's describing the "incorporated" status do not do). The criteria the RS uses is entirely up to each entity/organisation creating the sourced list, since if the source is reliable then the criteria would be reliable as well. It is not up to editors here on en.wikipedia to decide which entries are granted the "dependent territory" status, that is entirely up to the sources. Or will you once again to tell me that the reliably sourced information from the US government and the EU are just "wrong"?
Yes, I absolutely do think there is an argument to be made to change the lede to something more appropriate. The example you gave is a little restrictive, but regardless, what this article is really lacking is a thorough set of criteria (WP:LISTCRITERIA) that definitively describes the sourced and appropriate content of the list (for examples of lists with a decent set of criteria see List of sovereign states#Criteria for inclusion and List of transcontinental countries#Criteria for inclusion). The current Dependent territory#Summary section of this article does not really serve much purpose, and it is just short summarized version of the article anyway. It would be better if the first sub section in this article were instead to be utilized for the purposes of narrowing the content of the article to the relevantly sourced information. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

There are clear criteria for this article: one is that a territory be dependent on a state and that it not be part of that state. Although dependent territory is not a defined term, both territory and dependent are. As ordinarily defined, Palmyra is not dependent on or outside the U.S. CMD has presented a high quality source that Palymyra is part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

There is lengthy federal case law that says that Palmyra Atoll is an incorporated territory of the United States and thus fully integrated into the United States and as such the US Constitution fully applies. The laws of the former Territory of Hawaii have been held to be the law in Palmyra.XavierGreen (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The DOI website Wiz9999 linked to in Talk:List of sovereign states explicitly links Palmyra with the states and D.C., noting "the Congress made the U.S. Constitution and all U.S. laws applicable to Hawaii (including Palmyra Atoll) as elsewhere in the several States and the District of Columbia. On April 30, 1900, Hawaii (including Palmyra Atoll) became an incorporated U.S. territory. (In corporation has been consistently interpreted as a perpetual state. Once incorporated, an area cannot be de-incorporated.) So, when Hawaii (excluding Palmyra Atoll) was admitted as one of the several States, Palmyra remained and continues to remain an incorporated U.S. territory."

Regarding the lists provided, none provide a definition. The most limited list, the World Factbook, defines its contents as "nonindependent entities associated in some way with a particular independent state", which is no doubt purposefully vague. I also note that, despite Western Sahara being on both the Department of State and EU lists, and despite us having no source saying it is not a dependent territory, it has not been added here. This illustrates quite clearly that the lists need to be considered in the light of much more detailed sources. CMD (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that the concept of dependent territories as defined in this article exists under international law. It's only when there are permanent populations that it becomes an issue. Even then, there are exceptions such as Puerto Rico. Otherwise, recognition is of territory under the sovereignty of states, regardless of their status in domestic law. TFD (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

No, what is illustrated clearly is that this list is in need of well defined criteria, instead of some vague OR statements made in the lede. Nothing you have stated about the DOI article addresses my pointing out of the WP:SYNTH issue, and I STILL have yet to see an argument made against it from any of you. @TFD that is precisely why we need good criteria, based on reliable sources. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The criteria are clear, however no sources are possible since the concept is not defined anywhere. However, the words dependent and territory are clearly defined. Dependent means to be under the sovereignty of a state of which one is not a part and territory is a piece of land. ::On the other hand, is there any need for this article?

TFD (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The concept of a "dependent territory" meets notability guidelines, and the term is still used. What we have in the intro as it stands matches historical usage. I don't have a comprehensive study or anything, but the term appears in the UNs Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in "Welcoming the emergence in recent years of a large number of dependent territories into freedom and independence", and is still used on the UN committee on decolonization website as a synonym for the more long-winded "Non-Self-Governing Territories". The definitions for this committee are almost the same as what we have here, as territories are determined not to be dependent by 1) becoming integrated into the main country, 2) becoming independent, or 3) becoming an associated state of some kind. 3 is perhaps where our article/list differs, and that is for good reason as it's such a purposefully nebulous criteria. (And while that is the clear criteria, the decision of what entities fit these criteria for the purposes of the UN is entirely political, and so should be expected to differ from here where other sources are considered.) CMD (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The significant difference is that the UN implicitly did not include territories without indigineous populations. Secondly, they have removed many territories that would still meet the definition of dependent. That means we cannot use their list for this article. TFD (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with those differences, and as I have stated above, I don't think we can use any individual list for this article. My note on their list being a political decision was meant to convey your point that their list isn't founded on rigorous analysis. My purpose was not to dwell on their list, but to note the use of the term, and focus on the criteria as an example that matches the ones used in this article. CMD (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

TFD has noted the criteria. As for SYNTH, I have pointed out that your definition of SYNTH would lead to Western Sahara being included here. CMD (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

From my understanding, Jan Mayen is only considered a territory by many sources because of it's ISO code grouping it with Svalbard. Jan Mayen is not a dependency from the perspective of Norwegian law. Legislation is applied to Jan Mayen like anywhere else in Norway, with very few exceptions. Svalbard's governance is far more exceptional, with different immigration law being applied, as well as it's omission from the European Single Market, hence its listing here. Svalbard's local authority does not have much, if any, executive powers, however the central Norwegian government legislates in a similar fashion to say that of the UK parliament to it's smaller (non-self governing) overseas territories..

Also Jan Mayen has not always been listed on this article, and there has never been a clear consensus on it's inclusion (I can't speak for CMD's other changes).

Anyhow, I just wish to give some insight from as a former contributor.

Rob984 (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Australian external territories

I am confused as to why Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Island, and Norfolk Island are listed here. Let's forget about the latter for now. For the first two, they are administered and governed by the federal government of Australia and have their own local government (as do many Australian shires/towns). So this is no different than say, Hawaii with respect to USA. Why are they considered in the list here? The states and territories of Australia page considers them solely an integral part of Australia. For Norfolk, the article has not been updated since before 2014 for that section. Norfolk made sense here when it was self-governing, the Australian government abolished their self-governing status and its now part of Australia with the federal government controlling it basically. Any ideas? I find these Australian external territories the odd ones here. The rest of the list makes sense since each of them have a certain degree of autonomy. Svalbard is odd but involves an international treaty so I get it. Any thoughts here? Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marathonian (talk • contribs) 02:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Palmyra Atoll

Because Palmyra Atoll is considered an integral part of the United States, it should not be placed alongside other U.S. territories in the "List of dependent territories" section. However, since it is treated like a dependency in many ways, it belongs in the "List of similar entities" section. The "List of similar entities" section states, "The following entities are according to the law of their state, integral parts of the state, but exhibit many characteristics of dependent territories." Palmyra Atoll meets that criteria. LumaP15 (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Table of dependent territories

The table of dependent territories CLEARLY lists inhabited (i.e. permanent population) dependent territories. It does not list ANY dependent territory with zero population except for USMOI which is a late addition. USMOI which has 0 permanent population (mostly military personnel). My edit was reverted to remove this inconsistency. I am adding this to either debate this or accept my change. I believe adding USMOI only does not make sense, either add inhabited only dependent territory (as it was before) or NONE.