Talk:List of sovereign states

ICRC

I think we should not list the ICRC in the "excluded entities" section. ICRC is an organization registered in Switzerland, not a sovereign entity. It enjoys privileges (rather substantial in Switzerland) and has some responsibilities delegated to it by international treaties, but is this a reason to mention it in an article about sovereign states? Other organizations also have delegated responsibilities and enjoy some privileges/immunities - we don't list the UN for example. I understand that people make parallels between SMOM and ICRC, but there is one difference that matters in our case: SMOM is a sovereign entity, ICRC is not and doesn't claim to be such. SMOM is included as it is sovereign non-state. The EU/federal/dependencies/etc. are included as they are 'almost-sovereign' and 'very-state-like'. ICRC is both non-sovereign and non-state and doesn't claim to be either. I don't think anybody reading at the list of sovereign states would wonder "And where is ICRC?" ... The proper place for "non-including" ICRC is in the sovereignty article (and it is already put there) because ICRC is "almost sovereign" - just as the proper place for "non-including" SMOM is here as it is "sovereign but not state". Alinor (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The ICRC claims to have international personality which is the same thing as soveriegnty, it acts like a soveriegn polity under international law. Its members are free from the restrictions that their citizenship place on them and are treated as a soveriegn body by other states.XavierGreen (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What is this "claim to have international personality"? ICRC is a legal person, just like any NGO, Ltd., GmbH or other private company/organization/association. The important part here is that ICRC is registered in Switzerland, e.g. by definition it can't claim to be "equal to other sovereign entities" - as it is 'part of/subordinated to the law of' such sovereign entity (Switzerland). Yes, it enjoys privileges (different in the different states - depending on local laws) - but other organizations also have such properties (UN, etc.) - as I said above - ICRC is "sovereign-like" (so it is properly mentioned in the sovereignty article as a special non-sovereign organization), but it is not "sovereign state"-like, because it is neither sovereign nor state and not state-like.

The ICRC is not an NGO under international law, it acts like and is respected like an equal in international law and even by the Swiss who recognize its special status within Swiss law and giving the ICRC headquarters special rights of immunity (IE the Swiss cannot legally enforce Swiss law within the ICRC headquarters and the like from the ICRC however they may do so to an NGO). Please note that the ICRC is treated seperately from the rest of the Red Cross under international law, while the remaider of the red cross is treated as an ngo the ICRC is treated as a soveriegn international person.XavierGreen (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean, even SMOM place is on shaky ground - it is only included, because it is sovereign (lacking only the state-part) and because Malta is a state - so there is big potential for confusion, that' why it is justified to put a note "SMOM is not a sovereign state, thus it is not included in the list of these".

ICRC in contrast, isn't sovereign, isn't a state, nobody would confuse it for a state. So, there is no need for ICRC exclusion note here. ICRC can only be confused by someone as "sovereign non-state entity", that's why its "ICRC is not a sovereign non-state entity, but has similar properties" note is put in the sovereignty article. Alinor (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a good illustration of the problem with that list. We spend ages determining precise inclusion criteria for the main list and then tag on a list of random entities that don't pass the inclusion criteria. Sure the ICRC can go on by the listed standards. Shoot, Microsoft or Exxon-Mobil can go on by the listed standards. They are noteworthy, they exist, and they don't meet the criteria for the main list. And that's all that is required to be listed there. FWIW it's only there because of the EU. Otherwise it would have been binned long ago.

Having a list of entities that don't meet the inclusion criteria, without any meaningful limit on what can be included in that list, is not a good idea. Either we should determine some inclusion criteria for that list, or we should get rid of it. Pfainuk talk 21:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, the rationale for mentioning the ICRC is because it is commissioned by treaty to act as a protecting power in times of law. In this respect its prerogatives are akin to those of a state. It doesn't mean it's a sovereign entity, though. Ladril (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so some functions of the "world government" are assigned to it - that of worldwide (impartial to the sides of conflict) protecting power in times of war. If it was a UN body ("UN Committee of war time protection") doing that we wouldn't consider including it, would we? The fact that a separate organization has these duties assigned (with the accompanying privileges about immunity, etc.) doesn't change anything IMHO. OK, as it is not an international organization, but a Swiss entity - Switzerland has to go to extreme rules about its immunities inside Switzerland - so that its impartiality is not compromised/considered-to-be-compromised-by-the-other-states (as otherwise it can not perform its duties). That's why these "almost sovereign" classifications appear (additionally conducting humanitarian operations, like SMOM, doesn't help to distinguish them, but I think actions of SMOM/ICRC have nothing to do with their status - many governments conduct "inhumane treatment", "human rights breaches", etc. non-humanitarian activities, but their status doesn't change because of that). But this does not merit its inclusion here - as I said above, even SMOM probably wouldn't - if there wasn't the dual-confusion-possibility trough Malta and sovereignty.

Anyway, I agree that we should establish some criteria, otherwise such issues aways re-appear. Alinor (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

[1] Some states do not recognize "ICRC replacement passports for a single journey" (no other ICRC passport type is listed) - including Switzerland. Alinor (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Exclusions section

Mirroring what Pfainuk said in the above thread, I'm proposing to get rid of the "excluded from this list" section. Most of the links within said section are already included elsewhere anyway:

• Antarctica in the footnotes
• European Union in every member's entry, and in the footnotes
• Dependent territory in the hatnote
• Micronation right under the "Other states" heading
• Federation in every entry to which it's relevant, and in the footnotes

We have a criteria for inclusion. An item either fits it or does not, that's all that's necessary and should be obvious to any reader. We don't need to make a list (with elaborate information, even) of things and explain why each does not meet the criteria. If it's a pre-emptive notice for newbies or something, we can have a {{Notice}} at the top of this talk page instead. The article is long enough as it is. Nightw 04:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The only thing i would leave would be some mention of uncontacted peoples in the lead, since it is possible that there actually are states that are not mentioned. This could be incorporated into the lead. I also think a page entitled List of Soveriegn non-state entities be created with two sections (partial soveriegnty and full soveriegnty).XavierGreen (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, uncontacted people could be mentioned in the lead - or after "other states", but inside their section (as these are actually "potential other states" or something like that).

I had proposed a List of sovereign entities before, but the feedback from the other editors was that an entire article about so few entities (one or two, with little possibility for growth - back then I could imagine only GiEs as related) is not advisable - it would result in a single-entry list or a list with two single-entry sections. So, it seems the sovereignty article can easily host this information (as it is currently). We could add a note in the lead about "this list doesn't include sovereign non-state entities" (linking to the exact section of the sovereignty article, where this is described). Alinor (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The micronations note is still needed as well. Ladril (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think XavierGreen means by "would leave" that only the "excluded entities" section should be removed (if uncontacted peoples are mentioned somewhere) - the other notes elsewhere in the article will remain (such as the micronations note)? Alinor (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the entities listed in the excluded section have one of the two prerequisites for being listed (soveriegnty and territory), but micronations and uncontacted people have both. Therefore it need to be mentioned in the lead why they are not included in the list (because they are unverified in sources as states).XavierGreen (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Section removed. Nightw 19:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Uncontacted peoples

The exclusion of this category is currently mentioned in a footnote. I think any further repetition in the main text would be giving undue weight to an item whose relevance and notability here is easily disputable. The category does not meet the criteria, in that its units do not have the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations with any Westphalian state. We already mention the omission of them in the footnotes, let's keep the main text about the list itself, or else risk starting yet another "Excluded entities" section. Nightw 15:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah i didnt see the footnote before, my apologies. As long as the uncontacted folks and micronations were mentioned somewhere thats enough for me, since they were the only 2 groups of polities in the exclusion section that possibly could have met the inclusion criteria.XavierGreen (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I put an extra reflink in. Nightw 19:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul

Currently making a very large amount of minor edits to make the entire article conform better and to include some omitted info. Do NOT undo the edits, each one contains a vast amount of changes, it is much better to just create a new revision. Xtremerandomness (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I reverted this. You need to get consensus on this page before making such radical edits. --Taivo (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them radical so much as consolidating everything together. Please read over everything and don't make judgments based on the amount of red-text. Xtremerandomness (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No, there were substantive changes as well, such as rewriting the way that the Other States are treated. The bulk of your edits may have been minor, but it is never a good idea to compile pages and pages of edits into one, especially when there are substantial edits mixed in. Do not revert again. Read WP:BRD. It's not your job to get consensus for the non-formatting changes that you were introducing to the text. --Taivo (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In what way was the way Other States are treated changed? Every single edit compiled autonomous and disputed territories into lists, and standardised the ways they were treated. In no way were any major changes made.Xtremerandomness (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

For example, you treated Puntland and Somaliland identically under Somalia. They are different--Puntland has declared autonomy, but not independence; Somaliland has declared independence. Another major change that you introduced was to list all the autonomous regions of Russia. It was discussed here several months ago that such a listing was rather pointless and unnecessary. Unless your change is purely formatting, then I suggest you get consensus here first before implementing your ideas on what is "standardized". --Taivo (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And that is exactly the reason why I said to later change them if you had problems rather than reverting the entire thing. The majority of edits were fine I'm sure, and it would hardly take time nor effort to change 2 problems.Xtremerandomness (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is never good editing to make so many changes at once. It is always better to make them a piece at a time so that if there is a problem, just the single edit can be changed. Since you're the one making the changes, it isn't my responsibility to remember what things looked like and try to remember what the status quo looked like in every respect. --Taivo (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to do a revert and change those two issues if you want. I'll try and remember that for next time.Xtremerandomness (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Those were just two examples and not a complete inventory of the problems. There was a lot of discussion a few months ago about keeping all the flags out of it. They just clutter the presentation. --Taivo (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

So why mix and match? The article is currently a mess and needs to be cleaned up somehow, please stop grasping at straws.Xtremerandomness (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not grasping at straws. But you need to be careful about upsetting consensus here--whether you think it's a mess or not. This article is currently the subject of a mediation, so anything you do here may be for naught anyway in a month or two. I wouldn't spend too much time here until the mediation is over and several key issues decided. --Taivo (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to create an argument, but I tried to preserve every piece of information there and to provide it in a concise way. Agreed, there may have been mistakes, but that's not to say that it all needs reverting. Fine, it may be that the article disappears anyway, but that's beside the point at the current time. If you're going to present arguments as to why they were unnecessary, at least make your case properly.Xtremerandomness (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

For a start, it has been agreed that not everything should be bulleted and flagged. It would be an unnecessary trouble to go back through your edit and reprose all of them. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Chip it would be a hassle to go back and change things like that. But, looking through your massive edit, most of it wasn't really that interesting and was attempting to make the page consistent. I suggest you simply make the changes in a staged way; that way if someone objects to a change, it would be easy to go back, undo that specific change to discuss it, and leave the rest intact and ok (and hopefully still consistent). Would that be fair? PS, the problem with consistency on this list is there are so many exceptions and unique situations. Outback the koala (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Outback is quite right that consistency is a mirage here. The autonomous regions of Russia are entirely different creatures than Scotland as an autonomous region. They are autonomous in name only and don't really practice autonomy. We have to be careful not to confuse the name with the reality in each situation. Listing all of Russia's "autonomous regions" really isn't appropriate; listing Scotland, Wales, etc. as separate regions of the U.K. is. --Taivo (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The only autonomous areas that are flagged and bulleted are those that have their autonomy guaranteed by an international treaty such as Aland and the Chinese SARs. The partial soveriegnty of these autonomies is much stronger than an ordinary autonomous subdivision of a polity since their statuses are protected and guarenteed under international law. The consensus on this was very solid, and i highly doubt it will change.XavierGreen (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That being said, we still need something firm for what can be unbulleted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Yes, I think besides some POV issues included in this major overhaul, the main points are "what territories should be mentioned in the extants? of these who should be bulleted? of these who should have flags?"

About flags it was already decided some time ago (see talk history) - only official flags should be used and only for the bulleted entries. Bulleted entries that have only unofficial flags should use the "noflag" template.

We have List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement, multiple types of List of autonomous areas by country, Dependent territory and maybe something that I missed.

I understand that maybe some tweaked arrangement is "better/more common sense-like", but in order to avoid future edit wars I propose the following: bulleted should be only those from Dependent territory and List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement. Non-bulleted and in-line should be notes about Federated states and List of autonomous areas by country (if not already mentioned as bullted; not including special cities - mostly capital regions). The non-bulleted entities will be listed name by name only by exception, when their are only a few or in particularly notable cases (with footnote explaining the notability) - in all the other cases a general link should be used such as "Country XXX has YY number of [autonomous-region-type-name entities]." with link to an article about the specific region type or to [Administrative divisions of XXX].

In this way we will avoid having to judge what "autonomous" regions are really autonomous. I know that there will be some "gray area" cases, where common sense would imply different treatment (no mention vs. in-line mention; no bullet vs. bullet - such as here), but if we adopt this policy it would be easy to explain why a particular extant is structured in the way it will be structured - and thus avoid in the future lenghty edit-reverts. Also, I think adoption of this proposal would require only minor changes to the current arrangements. Alinor (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Israel annexed the Golan Heights

Under, Israel, Golan is given as occupied but not annexed. Under Syria, it is given as annexed. The latter is correct.

OK, I have to come right out and say it - this article, although very thorough and ultimately superior to most articles I've come across on Wikipedia, is still full of blatant errors. The above is just the one I chose to take the time to write about. I really, really, really have had it with Wikipedia.