Talk:List of states with limited recognition

Soverign Military Order of Malta

I have had some time to think about this, one entery does not a list make so we cannot create a sepparate list as was previous consensus. I think SMOM should be restored under the hedding Soverign non state entities with limited recognition however the Red Cross, Sealand and the North Sentinel Islands do not fall under this hedding: The Red Cross is uneversily recognized and does not claim soverginty, Sealand per above discussion and the North Sentinel Islands because we do not know if there is one state or more, we do not know if they even have a government one of the agreed upon requierments for this page.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that we should include SMOM here. It does not claim to be a state. Maybe it could be added if we rename the article "list of sovereign entities with limited recognition", but even then we would need sources confirming that some other state/entity LIMITS recognition (DOES NOT recognise) the SMOM - just like the case of Montenegro above. Alinor (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't reanaming the page due to one entery be undue weight? The section name makes it clear that they do not claim soverignity? I will also add a lead. Sources are given,whats wrong with them? --95.188.169.127 (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish (talk)

The ICRC does posses soveriegnty under international law as stated in its charter. As with before if you are going to include entities that arnt states we have to either change the title of the page and list them all or list none of them.XavierGreen (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few examples of nonstate entities that excercise at least partial soveriegnty under international law. We can create a List of Non-state soveriegn entities and have two categories. One is partial soveriegnty, ie nato, cern, international bureau of wieghts and measures. The other categorpy can be entities with full soveriegnty ie SMOM, ICRC, and possibly north sentinal and other similar cases if any can be identified. a notes section in the table can describe why each entity is considered soveriegn under internation law ect.XavierGreen (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Or just incorporate such a list into the Sovereignty article. Night w (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A general list would be a good idea but there are 2 problems: 1. It wouold be hard to incorporate recognition and 2. We will reach a consencus heer and the problem will be forgotten. Also, how is the ICRC a)soverign or b)unrecognized?--95.188.169.127 (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)HighFlyingFish(talk)

But recognition as a state doesn't concern the organisations you're talking about. They exercise sovereignty, sure, but not as a state. The SMOM isn't recognised by any state as a peer, some just maintain diplomatic relations with it. Diplomacy is a different thing to recognition (which is why we just had Montengro and Croatia removed from the list), and recognition of an organisation's sovereignty is probably not something that can be quantified. The ICRC is the same. I don't know the details (here would be more helpful), but the Geneva Convention classifies it as a sovereign subject of international law. The Sovereignty page would be the best place to describe such organisations; they don't belong here. Night w (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This page should only be for entities that qualify for the main list of sovereign states. If we start broadening the scope of the page just so we can include SMOM we're going to end up with something like List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement (i.e. a big OR mess). Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Stepping back in and hoping this doesn't turn into a deaf conversation...

The same criteria should be used in all pages of the encyclopedia. If SMOM fits in List of sovereign states, it fits here. Any proposal to remove it will have to take place in List of sovereign states as well. Since I doubt a consensus will be reached, I'll be looking at the mediation procedure, looking to improve both pages. Ladril (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, SMOM is not on the main list of sovereign states. It is only mentioned in a section following the list which explains why it doesn't qualify for inclusion (no defined territory and no permanent population) Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the page. It cannot be ruled out due to it 'not being a state'. That's the wrong argument. Ladril (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Where does the idea that the Red Cross is a sovereign entity come from? Here are the statutes of the organization: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/icrc-statutes-080503#a1

And the four Geneva conventions can be consulted here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView

So far nothing to indicate it claims to be a sovereign person under international law. I'm ready to be proven wrong, though. Ladril (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is text from an official source that states:

"Founded in 1863, the International Committee of the Red Cross is a private Swiss institution that acts as a neutral intermediary in matters of human suffering related to international conflicts, civil wars and internal social, political and military disturbances throughout the world. As custodian of the Geneva Conventions, it provides protection and assistance to both military and civilian victims of conflicts, including war wounded, prisoners of war, civilian and political detainees and civilian populations in occupied and enemy territories. "

Source: http://www.redcross.org/museum/images/IHLAct4.pdf

So no, I don't take the Red Cross argument as valid unless proven otherwise. Ladril (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it's mentioned on the page as a thing which isn't on the list. Should we include Antarctica and the European Union on this page as well? They're in the same section. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is that argument wrong? Are you proposing that we should include Antarctica and Sealand here as well since they are mentioned on the other list (in the excluded section)? I completely agree that this list should follow the lead of List of sovereign states, hence this isn't the place to proposing the inclusion of SMOM. If you think that SMOM shouldn't be excluded from the main list you should start a discussion there to have it included. If it was, this article would surly follow suit.

Regardless of whether non-stats should be included on the list or not, there are still no sources which support the claim the SMOM isn't universally recognized. The fact that it only has diplomatic relations with 110 states doesn't imply that the remaining states don't recognize it as a sovereign entity. TDL (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops...Orange beat me to the punch. TDL (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Since this is a list of states, it is very much the right argument. What is this page about if not states??? Ladril, if you wish it removed from the "Excluded" section of the List of sovereign states aswell, then by all means go ahead. It certainly doesn't belong here. I must apologise to HighFlyingFish because apparently he did ask for objections, but while none were raised I don't believe consensus has moved away from what was previously decided above. As no new arguments have been put forth that support its inclusion, it should be removed until this discussion decides as to where it should be listed. Night w (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't want SMOM removed from that page. I want both pages to have the same informative scope. In order to convince me, you'll have to argue why you think SMOM belongs there but not here. Ladril (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Besides, I disagree with the claim that the claim for SMOM is unsourced. Here is a quote from one of the sources:

"The number of States formally extending recognition to the Order of Malta in the modern era is growing...Since 1994, that recognition has enlarged to 99 Member States."

"And another from the Analitica source: "However, it is undeniable that the absence of territory deprives the Order of some independence. This peculiar situation may be explained by the gradual access of states to diplomatic recognition, which is the same expressed in relation to the States newly created or not very stable yet, but it has no weight for the purposes of framing the nature Order legal unless you want to give the territorial element condition a weight that it no longer has or do not want to see the importance of recognition by States."

So no, I don't understand why they deny it's an entity with limited diplomatic recognition. Ladril (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple things, number one is that the SMOM clearly state that their position is they are not a state yet still are a soveriegn subject under international law. The second is that the title of this article is that this is a list of states. Thus since the SMOM themselves do not recognize that they are a state, how can they be considered one for inclusion in the list. Third the ircr exercises complete soveriegnty under international law for example representatives of the ICRC are treated under international law as being alike to citizens of the ICRC, not as citizens of their home countries. The swiss government has no control watsoever on the activities of the ICRC.XavierGreen (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Third the ircr exercises complete soveriegnty under international law"

The problem is, there is not a single source to defend that. I guess that's fair treatment for both sides.

"The second is that the title of this article is that this is a list of states."

We all already know that, none of us are stupid. But in my view, pages about states *must* talk about other things which people *might* confuse with states, to dispel confusions. That's the motive behind the insistence for including SMOM, like it is included in List of sovereign states.Ladril (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The main issue at hand is not whether or not the SMOM is soveriegn, but rather whether or not it is a state. The page critera for inclusion is that only states can be included, hence why other soveriegn entities such as North Sentinel are not included.XavierGreen (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"The main issue at hand is not whether or not the SMOM is soveriegn, but rather whether or not it is a state."

The issue at hand is, sovereign powers are the powers of a nation-state. It doesn't matter if we agree that SMOM is a state. The simple fact that governments the world over recognize its powers as a state is enough for inclusion. Ladril (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned the last time this discussion came up, I wouldn't be opposed to a brief note at the bottom (similar to on LOSS) which explains that some non-state entities engage in diplomatic relations and listing SMOM as an EXAMPLE. However, I think any attempt to construct an exhaustive listing of sovereign entities would become a mess very quickly (as evident by the lengthy debates over ICRC/North Sentinal/CERN/etc).

And as for the status of SMOM's international recognition, there was a discussion above (which I wasn't a part of) which resulted in a consensus that only stats which are explicitly not recognized by another state would be listed. So unless you can find a source which states that "The government of the State of A considers SMOM to be a non-sovereign entity" then it doesn't qualify for inclusion by the current criteria. TDL (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"However, I think any attempt to construct an exhaustive listing of sovereign entities would become a mess very quickly".

Such an attempt is part of the challenge of building an encyclopedia. As regards SMOM, there are many legal documents recognizing its sovereign status, its own websites, and many academic studies that have been cited as evidence of its sovereignty. On the other hand, I've challenged the proponents of CERN, ICRC and North Sentinel to offer one source, with no results so far. Ladril (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ladril, why do you keep saying that you want this page to have the same scope as List of sovereign states when you're arguing for the inclusion of the SMOM? SMOM is not on the list of sovereign states. It is is an explanatory note which follows the list of sovereign states. Those are two different things.

I mean read the page, it clearly says the list has 203 entries. 192 UN Members, Vatican City, and the ten de facto independent states. No SMOM. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

sovereign powers are the powers of a nation-state, what about the soveriegn power exercised by independent city states, tribes, chiefdoms, and other nonstate polities? Eskimos in north greeland possesed full soveriegnty over the land they occupied before colonization and yet were not living in a state like polity.XavierGreen (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As for the ICRC, its non-state soveriegnty can be sourced. Per this source [[1]]

Switzerland and the International Criminal court both recognize that the ICRC is an independent subject of international law.XavierGreen (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This source [[2]] states that the North Sentinel Islanders maintain soveriegnty over their island.XavierGreen (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

How about we just stick to what was proposed —i.e., How and where to best incorporate sovereign institutions into a list like this one? After an idea has been agreed upon, then you can all go nuts with your additions and sources and what have you. Personally, I'm against incorporating the SMOM (or anything similar) into this list, for reasons that are obvious, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. For now, consensus apparently hasn't changed since the poll was made above, so let's agree on something before we start arguing about what else should be included. ??? Night w (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus hasn't changed. I gess you have a point about non recognition not being obvious, lets put this to rest until obvous sources regarding nonrecognition surface. A list of non state soverign entities should be made.--95.188.189.98 (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish (talk)

While we're on the topic of form, I would propose that each case should be discussed on its own merits, i.e., let's not try to piggyback on SMOM threads to try to argue in favour of other cases. I've seen that source about ICRC before, and it doesn't seem to me like it is sufficient evidence, but I'm willing to consider its inclusion in List of sovereign states (or maybe Sovereignty) if the case is well sourced in a thread of its own. North Sentinel already has its own thread above. Ladril (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should decide what to do with these things before arguing which ones fit the criteria.XavierGreen (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

On a second thought Ladril's source provided above seems to imply lack of recognition. One of the main arguments against SOMOM was that this is a list of states. Then lets just rename the page!!!!!!!! Creating a second list would be redundant and we can't just ignore that SOMOM is a soverign entity with limited recognition!!!!! As for the Red Cross (since this is bound to pop up if SOMOM passes Its recognized by everybody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--95.188.168.85 (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)HighFlyingFish (talk)

Changing the scope of the page would make it less useful for the reader. The page as it stands says "Here's a list of sovereign states which are unrecognized by at least one other sovereign state" and you're proposing that we change it to say "Here's a list sovereign entities that do not fit under the category of widely recognized sovereign state." The former is specific, which makes it easier to understand and maintain. The latter is vague, which makes it more difficult to maintain and less useful as a page. SMOM doesn't need to be on a second list and it doesn't need to be on this list. It doesn't need to be on any list at all. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not proposing we remove all entitis from this list. I would rather it not come to renaming the page either, when I made the section I made a lead which explained that this section contained non state entities but everybody said "this is a list of states". I am proposing we change it to a general term, states are soverign entities after all.We can't just ignore that SOMOM is a soverign entity with limited recognition!!!!! . This would remain--95.188.181.153 (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish (talk)

Why not? The page has a defined scope that SMOM falls outside of. I think we can very easily ignore it. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"We can't just ignore that SOMOM is a soverign entity with limited recognition".

Let's keep calm. That the evidence does not persuade everybody is no reason to squabble. At least some people are beginning to see the point, I guess. Ladril (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The goal of wikipidia is to provide verifieble, notable, NPOV information. This fits all those criteria, but we don't know were to put it, what's wrong with putting it hear?--95.188.181.120 (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish (talk)

Just because something exists doesn't mean that we have to put it on a list. The content of a list is determined by its inclusion criteria, not the other way around. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but whats wrong with renaming the page to List of soverign entities with limited recognition and adding SMOM?--95.188.172.219 (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)HighFlyingFish (talk)

Because we have a clear definition of what a sovereign state is (defined territory, permanent population, government, capacity to enter into relations with other states, claim of sovereignty) and beyond the 203 entities which fit that definition, things get murky. What criteria would you use to define a "sovereign entity"? Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wish things were that simple. Neither the Holy See nor Palestine fit that definition. Ladril (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that "entity" is an extremely vague definition for something; is it even a term used in legal theory? You said it yourself somewhere above that to rename a page in order to include something that doesn't really fit to begin with would be WP:UNDUE. Night w (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The term exists insofar as the UN uses it to refer to one of the entities on this list: Palestine. Ladril (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A more refined term would be a soveriegn non-state international personality, or a soveriegn non-state polity.XavierGreen (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Holy See has a defined territory (Vatican City), a permanent population (around 900 full-time residents), a government, the capacity to enter into relations with other states (nunciatures, etc.), and a claim of sovereignty. Palestine's situation is somewhat more complicated but it does seem to have a defined territory (West Bank and Gaza), a permanent population (the Palestinians), a government (the Palestinian Authority), the capacity to enter into relations with other states (it's recognized by multiple states and exchanges embassies with them), and a claim of sovereignty (since 1988).

And whatever term we use, we still have the problem of not being able to adequately define it. What is the definition of "sovereign entity" that encompasses only the 16 entities currently on this page + SMOM? Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

False. The Holy See, for starters, cannot have a population because it is an entity separate from the Vatican city state. Leaving that aside, the alleged population of Churchpeople reside in the Vatican on a non-permanent basis. Palestine's national authority does not have the full status of a government, as defined in agreements between the PLO and Israel. And the purported State of Palestine does not have a defined territory, as witnessed by the facts that their declaration of independence does not confine them to the West Bank and Gaza and that they are negotiating their boundaries with Israel. Ladril (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, let's not rehash the argument about Palestine here. It's debatable, I'll admit, but there have been multiple discussions about this on the main List of Sovereign States page and the conclusion has been that Palestine fits the criteria there. SMOM on the other hand, clearly does not. And like you were saying earlier, we should be using the same criteria on both pages. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"but there have been multiple discussions about this on the main List of Sovereign States page and the conclusion has been that Palestine fits the criteria there. SMOM on the other hand, clearly does not."

Not that clearly, since it's still mentioned on that other page. Anyway, whether SMOM fits in a list of states is something that should be discussed over at List of sovereign states. What we we're discussing here is whether it fits in a list of entities with limited recognition. Ladril (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that you've suddenly decided that List of sovereign states doesn't matter, because earlier in the conversation you were saying: "The same criteria should be used in all pages of the encyclopedia. If SMOM fits in List of sovereign states, it fits here." Well, I agree with that statement. This list and that list should use the same criteria, and SMOM is very explicitly excluded from that list. Just like Antarctica, the EU, Sealand, dependent territories, federal states, and uncontacted tribes. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"It's interesting that you've suddenly decided that List of sovereign states doesn't matter"

I did? If you say so... Ladril (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are you saying? Do you think we should be using the same criteria as List of sovereign states or not? Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that SMOM is mentioned on that other page for a good reason, and that it also deserves a mention on this page. I'm not interested in a polemic on whether it's a state or not. Third-party source support for its existence as a sovereign entity is enough for it to warrant a mention. Ladril (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The State of Palestine has effectively been administered by the Palestinian National Authority since the creation of that body, for example the pna controls the un observer seat and the like. Thus it can be argued that it does have a defined territory and control over some of that territory. The holy see is a seperate administrative body under international law, vatican city is a temporal possesion in effect in personal union with the holy see. Thinking further on the smom issue, i came to realize that there have been dozens if not hundreds of similar cases in the 18th and 19th centuries that resulted from the Mediatization of several monarchs in europe. The monarchs lost their states, but were still seen as soveriegn international personalities immune from the laws and jurisdiction of states similiar to how the ICRC and SMOM are.XavierGreen (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that a soverign entitie is a subject of international law with a government and a capacity to enter negotiations with other states but I stand to be corrected. As for renaming the page, I would rather it not come to this, it is a counter to the list of states argument. I still think renaming would be undue weight and unnecissary hassal, why do people oppose a section of soverign entities? As for Palestine, it has a A Territory: Gaza, West Bank, a population: those living there, a government: the PNA and diplomatic capability.--95.188.178.48 (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish (talk)

Im not opposed to listing them how their listed on the list of soveriegn states page, the Cook Islands, Niue, SMOM, and ICRC could be listed in such a manner.XavierGreen (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Of that list, only the SMOM is apparently without full recognition. Although again, the recognition that it does have remains irrelevant in this context. Night w (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm but dont the countries that have relations with the Cook Islands and Niue recognize them as independent states while the rest simply see them as possesions of new zealand?XavierGreen (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The answer to that question doesn't really impact on this current discussion; since they are states (independent or nay), they're not in the same category as the other two you mentioned. Night w (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you meen like on the list of soverign states, in a Diliberatly Excluded section? That is definatly a possibility though I still don't get why my origional proposal was rejected. 2 questions must be razed: whill we include other entities excluded from the page such as Sealand or North Sentinel and what will we do if a similer entity to SMOM surfaces, though we can cross that bridge when we get there.--95.188.187.224 (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)HighFlyingFish (talk)

I didn't support your original proposal because the addition didn't belong here. The proposal to change the title had foreseeable problems aswell, mainly that it was too broad and vague of a topic, without a well-defined criteria. I wouldn't be opposed to an "excluded" section, provided it is not entered in table-format. We would also have to agree that this section would be exclusively for the SMOM; a short note on uncontacted societies and micronations (with no examples) would suffice for the remainder. Night w (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine by me.XavierGreen (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Ladril (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we have consensus to add a "diliberatly excluded section in non table format with SOMOM and a note on micronations and tribes?--95.188.188.144 (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)HighFlyingFish (talk)

Yeah, seems so. Night w (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

israel, not recognized by hamas

but hamas isn't un member...84.228.162.239 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

It has been established that we list recognition and non recognition by non UN members as well as UN members. --95.188.187.224 (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC) (HFF)

Autonomous areas

Since these areas do not claim soveriegnty, i see no reason for them to be included in the critera section. If we leave them there it gives reason for other editors to include other categories that are not nessesary. I state that we should only include categories of entities in this section that meet the soveriegnty criteria but not the others. (note i understand the azad kashmir problem and i think we should discuss that in a seperate thread than this one.)XavierGreen (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

We are mentioning them because very often somebody pops up adding Iraqi Kurdistan, Tibet or the Basque Country. We're trying to make the page more manageable for the editors. Ladril (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not really the purpose behind an encyclopædic article. And why autonomous areas specifically? It seems (especially with the examples) that it's almost intended to pre-empt an addition that would already be disqualified by not having met one of the six points described at the top of the section. Two other questions (and I'm not trying to hijack your thread here, Xavier, I'll stick to the new section): 1, Would it not be better to place the criteria section at the bottom of the page; and 2, Why is there a flagicon next to SMOM? Night w (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The goal of the creteria section is to make the page more managable so I see no problem with Autonomous areas. The flagicon is there because it is 1: more visualy appealing and 2: for the sake of consistance.--95.188.189.148 (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)(HFF)

If we're going to nitpick, I see no clear reason why uncontacted peoples or micronations should be mentioned on this page. But that's only my own personal perspective; other people think differently and the goal is to tell them that by consensus those kinds of entities are not to be listed here. Same with SMOM and autonomous areas, which have been recurrent topics of debate and edit-warring here. Few things are more frustrating than the continuous edit and revert wars over the addition or deletion of such and such entity. As for the location of the criteria section, I believe such a section is always better at the top (and it should also be that way in List of sovereign states). That way it's harder for people to claim they did not see it before editing. Ladril (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think a better solution would be to include the autonomous areas (outside of azad kashmir) in a faq section at the top of the talk page. This is similar to how common issues are handled on the United States page.XavierGreen (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's been tried before, and the reality is only a small fraction of editors actually read the talk pages. Wikipedia:Featured list criteria recommends that "[a list] has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list." Let's not try to find a problem where there is none. Ladril (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well some obvious ones have been identified. Firstly, the flagicon on SMOM needs to go. There's no reason for it, and having it there (especially at the top of the page) makes it seem like it's an entry on the list. I'll ask again, why autonomous areas specifically? Why not also add dependent territories? secessionist units? associated states? governments-in-exile? There are many territories that have been disqualified already by the criteria layed out...why is "autonomous areas" mentioned specifically? It was not part of the consensus established in the discussion above when we agreed that this section would be incorporated. Another thing, which was part of what was stipulated, was that examples were not to be used. I've reverted to what was agreed upon. Changes and additions that are opposed, per proper procedure, should be proposed and discussed here. I've let the flag issue go for now, because it wasn't explicitly ruled out in the discussion above, but I am still arguing for its deletion. Night w (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly as I said before autounamus areas are here because they have been added to the main list in the past by (possibly) misguided editors. I have no problem with dependent territories secessionist units associated states and governments-in-exile except that that would make for a giant section and that so far these have been added and debated far less then say Autanimus areas or micronations. As for the flag I do not get whats wrong with it. It is visualy appealing and identifies that this entery is a specific entity not a group.--95.188.179.145 (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish (talk)

Too much argument over minutiae, really. And serious danger of instruction creep as well. Ladril (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The section's been moved to the bottom by another editor, so I'm fine with leaving the flag in for now. Night w (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see what's wrong with the flag icon as well. What are the icons for then? Ladril (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the SMOM is sui generis, i dont really see a difference with having the flag or not. Its just a stylistic issue i suppose, but one i have no opinion on.XavierGreen (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Is everyone okay with the section and flagicon as is? (I am).--95.188.177.42 (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

An actual serious problem

It appears some clown has deleted the file for the flag of the western sahara and i have no idea how to fix it.XavierGreen (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What about these? [3] or [4] BritishWatcher (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like people with greater powers than i have taken care of it already.XavierGreen (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Um the flag icon is still blank!!!--95.188.179.145 (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the vandalism for the second time. Given that the flag is used on hundreds of pages through the {{Flag|SADR}} template, it may be worth protection. Any commons admin around?—Emil J. 12:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)