Talk:List of sovereign states

Donetsk and Lugansk

Why they aren't in the list of unrecognized states like Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinusepsid (talk • contribs) 20:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Becausethey are regognised by no other states. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

That isn't the reason. The reason is that they are still engaged in Ukraine's active civil war, albeit at a more subdued level than a few years ago, and so the states don't have stable boundaries. It's the same reason Azawad in Mali was never added, and the Islamic State is absent. The Abkhazia etc. conflicts had been cold for several years before they were added to Wikipedia. If a real cease-fire comes into play and Donetsk and Lugansk don't get reabsorbed into Ukraine, then they'd go here. Astrofreak92 (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly. It's more the lack of sources calling them a state. Azawad actually did have stable borders, albeit for a very short time. It imploded from within not due to war. CMD (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If you look back through the various lengthy discussions on the issue, its not that the DPR and LPR do not meet the declarative theory, its that we do not have a reliable source which states that they meet the declarative theory (as CMD stated above). Also, as CMD stated, Azawad was added to the list but was removed because its government no longer controlled any territory in the area it claimed. It then later rescinded its declaration of independence. XavierGreen (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"Becausethey are regognised by no other states" This goes against wikipedia article about Sovereignty, you change the definition from

This governing body has the "full right and power [..] to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies"

That is the one on the article, to

This governing body has the "full right and power [..] to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies" as long as I think he has the "full right and power [..] to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies"177.92.128.26 (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There is also the (unstated) problem that these are not intentionally independent states. They are regions that were founded with the goal of annexation by Russia (as with Crimea). When that goal became politically untenable, then autonomy within Ukraine became a goal. Only if (near complete) autonomy within Ukraine is not achieved will independence become the goal. It has never been clear that complete sovereignty has been an unambiguously stated goal either separately (as two individual countries) or together (as a unified "Novorossiya"). Not only are there unstable borders and an unstable military situation, there is an unstable political situation as well. --Taivo (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Crimea

The annexation of Crimea is not mentioned anywhere in the list: perhaps there should be a mention about how both the Ukraine and Russia claim it, maybe under their respective entries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.127.228 (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

We do not list territorial disputes between the integral territory of two countries. CMD (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not true, the India-China territorial dispute concerns "integral" territory and is covered here.Astrofreak92 (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

True. Does anyone remember why we do this? CMD (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

There is discussion in the archives that Azar Kashmir is recognized as a sovereign state by the U.S. and some other countries. TFD (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir is claimed by its government to be a sovereign state, it claims to be the legitimate government of the former Princely State of Kashmir. It is in effect administered directly by the Pakistani government, but the Pakistani government does not claim it as an integral part of Pakistan. Its position is somewhat akin to an external territory which is why it is bulleted in the list. Crimia is however a integral part of Russia and thus not akin to the situation involving Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan.XavierGreen (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

But I'm not talking about Azad Kashmir, I'm talking about the northern parts of India's claimed Jammu and Kashmir disputed with China. That territory is discussed here. Astrofreak92 (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir claims those portions of Kashmir controlled by India to be its territory as well.XavierGreen (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but they are also claimed by India and China. The dispute between India and China is covered here independent of any claims of Azad Kashmir or Pakistan. Astrofreak92 (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Than the dispute between China and India should be removed, since claims over integrated areas of states are not shown on the page. The claim between India and the Pakistani administered areas should still be mentioned since it involves external territories.XavierGreen (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there actually a territorial dispute between Pakistan (or it's territories) and China? This file seems to indicate that there hasn't been one since at least 1963, while Azad-Kashmir couldn't possibly be involved anyway. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"...Article VI [of the Sino-Pakistani Agreement of 1963] stated "The two Parties have agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, the sovereign authority concerned will re-open negotiations with the Government of the People's Republic of China... so as to sign a Boundary Treaty to replace the present agreement." [1]. Ladril (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The Kashmir situation is complicated. I would like to point out for the time being, however, that the entry on Sudan lists a territorial dispute concerning integral territory. If what CMD says is true (seems to me that it is) it should be removed. Ladril (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, I would ask other editors to consider moving Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan to the "excluded entities" section, since they are neither sovereign states nor dependencies in the sense we understand them to be in Wikipedia. Ladril (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Good spot. I've removed the Sudan entry, it lacks any of the contingencies that makes Kashmir so complicated. It also wasn't replicated on South Sudan.

I would agree that Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan may merit inclusion on the excluded entities section as well. CMD (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are treated defacto by Pakistan as dependencies and are administered by Pakistan. They should still be bulleted under Pakistan.XavierGreen (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that they are not listed on the dependent territory page, so I would question whether they merit inclusion on the same level as the Falklands or Aruba. Ladril (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

They should be listed on the dependent territory page in the second section. Also, Aruba is not a dependent territory, but is an integrated part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. If you look through the talk page archives here, the consensus was to bullet them since they are akin to external territories in most respects.XavierGreen (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Aruba has gone through a political and legal process in which it has become sufficiently distinct from the Netherlands while still retaining strong ties to that country. This is the rationale for its inclusion as a bulleted item. Pakistan-administered Kashmir, on the other hand, is a completely different situation. It is territory under military occupation which has not been legally stabilized as a possession of Pakistan, even under Pakistani law. Even if its situation is similar to that of a dependency or protectorate, this fact alone may not be enough to warrant treating them like the other bulleted items. Ladril (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

No, Aruba, the Netherlands, et al are bulleted because they are the constituent countries to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and are all in personal union with each other. In re Azad Kashmir and Baltistan: "Legally stabilized as a possession of Pakistan", what does that statement mean? There are elected governments that civilly govern Azad Kashmir and Baltistan. Those governments have always acquiesced to Pakistani overlordship of themselves. The fact that they are not integrated parts of Pakistan is the entire reason they are bulleted and why they are akin to dependencies or protectorates. I also note that in the various lists of sovereign states by year, protectorates, vassal states, and suzerainties are bulleted as well.XavierGreen (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If people want to continue the Kashmir discussion, may I request that we open a new thread for that? This stopped being about Crimea a long time ago. Ladril (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan-administered Kashmir

Xavier said: "No, Aruba, the Netherlands, et al are bulleted because they are the constituent countries to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and are all in personal union with each other." Except the bullets are not used exclusively to denote constituent countries. The other interpretation (that they are akin to dependent territories for Wikipedia purposes) has validity as well. That's my reading of the page at least.

"In re Azad Kashmir and Baltistan: "Legally stabilized as a possession of Pakistan", what does that statement mean? There are elected governments that civilly govern Azad Kashmir and Baltistan. Those governments have always acquiesced to Pakistani overlordship of themselves." Irrespective of accuracy, this seems to me to be irrelevant to the discussion of whether they should be bulleted or not. The extent to which many of the bulleted items have "acquiesced" to be a possession of the "parent" country is questionable.

"The fact that they are not integrated parts of Pakistan is the entire reason they are bulleted and why they are akin to dependencies or protectorates." As pointed out previously, we pretty much agree that their situation is "akin to dependencies or protectorates". My point is that under international law they are in de jure legal limbo: they have not been declared to be sovereign countries, protectorates, associated states, dependent territories, autonomous regions, or anything else for that matter. This is what raises the question of whether they should be listed on the same level as all the other entities that have a more clearly defined legal status.

"I also note that in the various lists of sovereign states by year, protectorates, vassal states, and suzerainties are bulleted as well." Yes, but this page has stricter standards on inclusion, organization, accuracy, etc. than many of those lists. I believe they should be judged by the standards of this page, not the other way around. Ladril (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The standards of the "list of sovereign states in the (insert decade)" pages are exactly the same as they are here, though some of the old year by year pages which were being phased out have not yet been updated to reflect that. Per prior discussions the following types of polities are bulleted: polities which are subject to sovereignty of a country that is limited by international treaty (Svalbard, Aland, the Chinese SARs), dependent territories, associated states/protectorates, and self declared autonomous areas (which hold defacto independence, yet don't claim independence dejure). In each of these instances the sovereignty held over the polity is either held independently from that of the administering country, or the sovereignty held by the mother country is limited in some manner. I assume the two polities that make up Bosnia are bulleted because their existence is regulated by the Split Agreement, an international treaty to which Croatia is a party.XavierGreen (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

There are actually quite a few discrepancies between the "list of sovereign states by year" pages and this one. To name one, most of them do not even mention Azad Kashmir or Gilgit Baltistan. I'm confused as to how I can take them as an example to follow here. Also, my central question remains unanswered: why should we treat Pakistan-administered Kashmir, which is a disputed territory with unresolved international status, the same as we do autonomous areas and dependent territories? Or to phrase the question in a different way: what are the criteria an entity must meet in order to be made a bulleted entry in the list? Xavier's method of trying to compare Azad Kashmir to other cases is unsatisfactory, since it does not address how specific their situation is. I would say this is a good time to make our criteria for bulleted entries explicit. Ladril (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not a polity is disputed is irrelevant as to whether or not it exists defacto or dejure. Azad Kashmir and Baltistan exist as a Pakistani administered polities under Pakistani law and their own laws. For instance, the existence of Somaliland is disputed by the entire world, and it is listed here on this page. The existence of the Falkland Islands as an overseas territory of the United Kingdom is disputed by several countries, which decline to recognize its existence in international relations.XavierGreen (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

For the third time, no one is questioning that the Pakistani-administered areas exist or that they have their own laws. For the present discussion we are also not interested in whether other states recognize them or not. The issue is whether their explicit status (disputed territories) merits being bulleted just like constituent countries and dependent territories, or whether they should be designated in some other way. Ladril (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for bulleting

The standards for bulleting in the page seem to be in need of clearer definition. Currently, bulleting seems to involve constituent countries as well as any item included in the dependent territory page. Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are also bulleted, and there is a debate above on whether they should be. Autonomous areas are not bulleted for the most part, though at least two (Cyrenaica and Syrian Kurdistan) are. Federal subjects are not bulleted for the most part, though two federal areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina are. Not sure whether the two entries disputed by the United States deserve to be bulleted either. Can we start to define clear criteria for bulleting entries? If there is some reason for the differences, can anybody explain them to me? Ladril (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I already explained what is bulleted and why above, though upon further review I don't see anything which indicates that constitutive countries should be bulleted. The polities that make up Bosnia are regulated by an international treaty. As for Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank, they are both considered to be unincorporated territories by the United States. Serranilla Bank is occupied and administered by Colombian troops. Bajo Nuevo Bank is generally unoccupied, but is occasionally occupied by Jamaican nationals and Colombian nationals. Many of the territories/dependencies bulleted above are subject to sovereignty claims of other nations (Falklands, South Georgia, Navassa, Wake Island, Gibralter, ect). Just because another country claims a polity does not mean that it shouldn't be bulleted above.XavierGreen (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not remember ever saying that an entry should not be bulleted if it is subject to a sovereignty claim by another nation. I don't see how you got that notion. What I am asking is for clarification for certain types of areas where the criteria for bulleting are not explicitly defined. To give you a clearer idea of what I'm trying to accomplish, I will draft a list of what seem to be the current criteria for bulleting an entry:

Currently, bulleted entries include:

1. Constituent countries of a sovereign state (with criteria taken from the constituent country page).

2. Dependent territories of a sovereign state (with criteria taken from the dependent territory page).

3. Two federal areas which form part of Bosnia and Herzegovina and were created by an international agreement: Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska.

4. Two self-governing areas under the control of Pakistan: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.

5. Two self-declared autonomous areas (Cyrenaica and Syrian Kurdistan). Note that there are other self-declared autonomous areas which are not currently bulleted, such as Puntland and Galmudug.

6. Two territories whose sovereignty is being disputed by the United States (not currently listed on the dependent territory page):

Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank.

Given the list above, I would suggest four things. First, to incorporate these into the page as explicit criteria for the bulleting. Secondly, to look for instances in which the criteria may not be consistently applied across the table. Thirdly, to check whether some of these criteria are currently pertinent or useful. Fourth, to add or remove bulleted entries if necessary. Ladril (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

My issues with the current bulleting scheme, explained as succintly as possible, are:

1. Does the creation of federal areas by an international agreement really warrant bulleting them? I would motion for Federation of Bosnia and Republika Srpska to be unbulleted.

2. Are Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan to remain bulleted? If so, let's write in the article that they are being included as self-governing areas with disputed international status.

3. If Cyrenaica and Syrian Kurdistan are bulleted, Puntland and Galmudug are very likely to merit being bulleted as well.

4. I would lean towards removing the bulleting (or even any mention for that matter) of the Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo territories, but would like to hear other opinions.

Thoughts on any of this? (no offense, but I would rather not have Xavier repeating any point he has already made. His positions are already clear). Ladril (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are not included because they are "self-governing areas with disputed internal status", they are included because they are external territories administered by Pakistan. As for Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo, they are claimed by the United States government as unincorporated territories, to be NPOV they would have to be included if territories such as the Falklands or South Georgia are listed. Also, your are consistently stating that the dependant territory wiki page has inclusion criteria, reviewing the page I don't see any specificly outlined inclusion criteria like there is on this page.XavierGreen (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)4

Your list above also does not mention the four polities bulleted with their mother countries sovereignty limited by international treaty (Hong Kong, Aland Islands, Macau, and Svalbard). Once upon a time these polities had their own Wikipedia page called something like "special territories" or something to that effect, but for whatever reason it was merged into the dependent territory page.XavierGreen (talk)

Thoughts:

1) We do not bullet constituent countries. Any that are bulleted are bulleted for other reasons.

2) Not sure we should take criteria from the other page, but dependent territories vague as they are, merit bulleting due to their treatment as separate in most sources.

3) The Bosnian regions are there under the international treaty requirement, although I will note that in our List of sovereign states and dependant territories in Europe page someone made an argument for Northern Ireland to fall under this category, and it may do so here too.

4) Pakistan's territories would qualify as dependent territories per Xavier's argument, which I am minded now to accept barring sources otherwise.

5) Autonomous areas I would unbullet.

6) Falls under dependent territory criteria.

CMD (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of moving things forward, in what follows I will respond to the two editors above: I agree that the criteria for the dependent territory page are not very clear and could use improvement, but they also reflect a long-standing consensus among Wikipedia editors as to what qualifies as a dependent territory and what does not. If anybody wants to change that consensus, the appropriate venue should be that page, not this one. Also, to be frank, the coincidences between what is listed on the constituent country and dependent territory pages and what is being bulleted here are actually much more numerous than the differences. Since editors on the three pages pretty much agree already on what constitutes a territory worthy of mention, I would suggest we keep the sorting and fine-tuning to a minimum.

With this in mind, I did not define a separate criteria for Hong Kong, Svalbard, etc., because these territories are already on the dependent territory page. Likewise, I am mentioning the Pakistani-administered areas of Kashmir and the disputed areas of the US separately because they are NOT on that page. Why is this relevant? Because, until somebody shows reliable sources to the contrary, listing Pakistani-administered Kashmir as dependent territories risks falling under WP:OR. As for the Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo cases (which I'm not very familiar with), why should the dispute about them be mentioned when there are no references to the Falklands or Gibraltar disputes anywhere on the page? Ladril (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Responding more specifically to CMD's comments:

1. Re: constituent countries. If these are not being bulleted as such, the Netherlands entry is in need of revision. The Dutch territories in the Caribbean would still merit being bulleted since they are listed on the dependent territory page.
2. Re: dependent territories. No disagreement here.
3. Re: Bosnian regions. This would probably have a stronger case if editors could come to an agreement on the Northern Ireland issue. In any case, the page should include an explanation that these are bulleted because of the international treaty criteria, and not for any other reason.
4. Re: Kashmir. The problem with Xavier's argument is we do not have any sources that describe these as dependent territories. I'm not pushing for unbulleting them, in any case. All I am saying is that if they are to remain bulleted, we have to write in the article why we are bulleting them.
5. Re: Autonomous areas. I would unbullet them (and remove WP:FLAGCRUFT) as well.
6. Re: Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo. They are not currently listed on the dependent territory page, so to me they look more like a residual territorial dispute that should be removed since disputes for the most part are not listed (except when Kashmir or the non-UN states are involved). Ladril (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Also moving forward, here is a revised list of what seem to be the current criteria for bulleting:

1. Constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
2. Two federal areas of Bosnia created by international agreement: Federation of Bosnia and Republika Srpska.
3. Dependent territories of sovereign states, as listed on the dependent territory page.
4. Two special territories of Chile not listed on the dependent territory page: Easter Island and Juan Fernandez. In my opinion, these should be treated as autonomous areas (see list of autonomous areas by country) and unbulleted.
5. Two self-governing areas under the control of Pakistan: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.
6. Two self-declared autonomous areas (Cyrenaica and Syrian Kurdistan). Note that there are other self-declared autonomous areas which are not currently bulleted, such as Puntland and Galmudug.
7. Two territories whose sovereignty is being disputed by the United States (not currently listed on the dependent territory page): Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank. Not sure what business these have being on the page, since they are uninhabited and other disputes over uninhabited territory are not covered.
Ladril (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Responding for now just on the constituent country point, it is very hard to describe the Netherlands due to its unique structure. Like France and Denmark, its legal structure treats all its land is integral territory. Unlike France and Denmark, it does not subsume the overseas territories under its core political structure, but instead sets them up as theoretical equals (although in practice they're clearly not). We thus have to balance the displaying of the territories, which man sources do, with an accurate description of its political structure, hence the listing of the European (+ a couple of Caribbean islands) Netherlands as well as the islands units. If we're rewording, I'd like to remove the distinction between the formal name and the short name we currently use if possible. It may also be time to consider removing the Antilles clarification, as many years have now passed since its dissolution. CMD (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Question why should we bullet anything? Given that this page is about sovereign states, and not dependent territories, it seems like we are dedicating a lot of space to dependencies. They really have nothing to do with "status and recognition of sovereignty" which is the subject of the column. All of the proposed criteria seem rather arbitrary, which is by necessity as there is not any clear, universal definition that can be applied. Why not just replace the bullets with text, so we don't need to keep having this argument about what deserves a bullet and what doesn't, and link to dependent territory and country specific articles where the subject can be treated in detail? TDL (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I would not say the bulleting is useless per se, but there is definitely quite a bit of inconsistency and arbitrariness in how it has been used so far. My proposal would be to adopt a few clear, streamlined criteria on what should be bulleted, so as to keep as few bulleted items on the page as possible. Ladril (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

So, assuming my recent edits stick with other editors, here is what I find to be the current criteria for bulleting (sorry for the repetitiveness, but there are way too many issues to address here):

1. Two federal areas of Bosnia created by international agreement: Federation of Bosnia and Republika Srpska.
2. Dependent territories of sovereign states, as listed on the dependent territory page.
3. Two self-governing areas under the control of Pakistan: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.
4. Two territories whose sovereignty is being disputed by the United States (not currently listed on the dependent territory page): Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank. Not sure what business these have being on the page, since they are uninhabited and other disputes over uninhabited territory are not covered.Ladril (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I think TDL that the why bullet question is reasonable, but saying simply to put things into text merely shifts the question elsewhere. Given that we have quite a few things that we think worth noting in the text, including dependent territories which I would personally keep as areas that fall outside a sovereign state despite being under their jurisdiction, I think bullet points help add a layer of differentiation, and keeps lists such as under the UK more readable.

Regarding Ladril's points, your 3 and 4 I both see as variations of 2, as the Pakistan territories are according to Xavier legally not integrated, and the US claimed territories are claimed as dependant territories. Whether we should note their being disputed in non-US rows is another question. CMD (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Whether dependencies and the Kashmiri territories should be bulleted or not is currently not being debated. Basically, most of us are in favour of keeping them bulleted. My greatest points of contention are 1 and 4. Since you addressed number 4, I will do the same. To what extent can you claim that Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo are dependent territories of the US when the country exercises little actual control over them? Comoros considers Mayotte to be an integral part of its territory [2], but we are not mentioning that here. Ladril (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The American unincorporated territories (external territories) exist dejure under American law. They are not claimed as integral areas (incorporated areas) of the united states, but are claimed by the untied states to be external territories in the same manner as Jarvis, Howland, Baker, and Navassa.XavierGreen (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

In regards to the Bosnian polities, as I stated above, the sovereignty of Bosnia over those polities is explicitly restricted by an international treaty, as is Norway's sovereignty over Svalbard, the PRC over the SARs ect. Whether or not a polity is included on the list of dependent territories page is meaningless.XavierGreen (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo. The Falklands exist de jure as part of Argentina under Argentinian law, and Mayotte exists the jure as part of Comoros under Comorian law. In fact, Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo are considered parts of Colombia and Nicaragua under the respective laws of those countries. However, we are not including information on these other claims on the page. As long as the U.S. exercises no actual control on Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo, listing these territories amounts to exceptional treatment (and the problems with the U.S. entry do not stop there, but let's leave it at that for the time being).

No, the difference is that Argentina and the Comoros claim those areas as integral parts of their countries. The United States does not claim that Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo are part of the United States, the United States claims that they are external territories possessed by the United States.XavierGreen (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the difference warrants inclusion in the article. It is only tangential to the topic at best, and the U.S. entry is exceedingly long already. Ladril (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Its long because the United States has a large number of external territories, for completeness all external territories should be included or none of them at all.XavierGreen (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, "has" is not the same as "claims". Besides, I think the effort spent on detailing ALL the external territories of a given country should be focused on the dependent territory page. Ladril (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: dependent territories and international agreements. As ascertained by at least three editors on this thread, the bullets are being used to denote mostly dependent territories. I don't see why you or anyone else would think that denoting dependent territories and areas created by international agreements in the same way is an "irrelevant issue". It is relevant because we need to define exactly what the bullets are supposed to represent in order to prevent WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, or WP:FLAGCRUFT. Ladril (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry If I was unclear, but I wasn't suggesting that we list every dependency in text, just that we describe them. For example, the UK entry would change from:

current

Member of the EU. The United Kingdom is a Commonwealth realm consisting of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. The United Kingdom has the following overseas territories: Akrotiri and Dhekelia Anguilla Bermuda British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands Falkland Islands Gibraltar Montserrat Pitcairn Islands Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Turks and Caicos Islands British Antarctic Territory The British monarch has direct sovereignty over three self-governing Crown dependencies: Guernsey, with three dependencies: Alderney Herm Sark Isle of Man Jersey

to

proposal
Member of the EU. The United Kingdom is a Commonwealth realm consisting of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. The United Kingdom has 14 overseas territories, and the British monarch has direct sovereignty over three self-governing Crown dependencies.

This greatly streamlines the entry, giving an overview of the structure without a long list of every dependency, while linking to the relevant articles with more details. At the moment, the entry has way more text describing things that aren't part of the UK than things that are. Even if we settle on what to list, then we have debates on what flags to show, etc. TDL (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This may work fine for some dependent areas, but what do you propose we do about constituent countries, for example? Ladril (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally I prefer listing them, as then this page lists all entities, sovereign states and those outside (through this argument I'd be okay removing the Guernsey subunits, unless my understanding of their status is wrong). It's not explicitly part of the criteria for the page, but I think it adds interesting context. I don't understand Ladril's distinction with constituent countries though. CMD (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I prefer listing them as well, I believe that any polity over which a state hold sovereignty over in a subjugated manner or in which its sovereignty over is limited should be bulleted, which in effect is the status quo. In regards to the Netherlands, the relationship between the four realms is more akin to that of a personal union than it is one of constituent countries.XavierGreen (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. On second look, I believe I understand the essence of TDL's proposal now. Ladril (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

On a different but pertinent topic, and without wanting to open yet another extra-long debate on the political status of a dependency, my understanding of the status of Alderney, Sark, and Herm is that they are associated with Guernsey. This means that Guernsey performs some functions on their behalf, but has little or no authority over them. It also means that their relationship to the British Crown is direct. Without wanting to delve into another debate similar to the Cooks for the moment, I would say they deserve to be mentioned even if only in a streamlined fashion. Ladril (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not acceptable for sovereign states like the Marshall Islands and Palua and Micronesia to be bulleted under another sovereign state, like the United States. Their compact of association does not mean that these countries fall under the sovereignty of the US in any way. Furthermore, we don't mention all claims by countries over part of an other country that they don't actually control in a bulleted list. That would be a practice that is not the purpose of this article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

In some respects, they are not fully sovereign states having given up various elements of sovereignty, such as defense, ect to a foreign nation. Thus in some respects the US and New Zealand associated states are akin to protectorates. It has long been consensus here to list them in a bulleted fashion just as dependent territories and areas with sovereignty restricted by international agreement are (like Svalbard) are. In regards to Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo bank, as I stated above, de-jure the united states asserts separate sovereignty over each in the manner of an unincorporated (external) territory. The united states does actively assert sovereignty over these areas through coast guard patrols. There are several other uninhabited territories mentioned on this page that are claimed by other countries, for example Navassa Island. If we are going to bullet dependent territories, we should include them all.XavierGreen (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You forget that a compact of free assocuation with New Zealand or the UK are not the same things. They are certainly not the same thing as a compact of free association with the United States, which were entered into by independent countries. You don't seem to understand that these are very different agreements. Under the same token you should bullet Liechtenstein under Switzerland and Monaco under France. Why aren't parts of Gujarat (which Pakistan claims but doesn't control) not bulleted under Pakistan when the two beaches claimed by the USA are? Why is the part of the Ems estuary that the Netherlands claim, but is expoited by Germany not bulletted under the Netherlands. You are potentially making a big mess of this article! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not doing anything, in fact what I am asserting for was the status quo on this page for a long time prior to user:Ladrill's edits and opening of this thread. The difference between the disputes you assert is that they involve integral areas of sovereign territories. The dispute involving Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo Bank involve the existence of the entirety of those two dependant territories, much in the same way as the existence of Somaliland is disputed in its entirety.XavierGreen (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Not quite. The Trust territories moved directly from trusteeship to Compacts of Free Association with the U.S. They did not have an intermediate stage where they were considered fully independent. Ladril (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, they are considered as sovereign states by virtue of the very same Compact of Free Association that you mention here! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Xavier, you have me convinced for now. I also agree with you on the Marshall Islands et al. sovereignty issue. Ladril (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The compact of association between the USA and its former Trust territories is not a matter of sovereignty. It is an international agreement between fully sovereign states. The article should not suggest that they are in any way subsets of the USA. As for the Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo cases, the International court has awarded them to Colombia. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The case you referred to litigated only the claims between Nicaragua and Colombia, it did not consider the other claimants, including the United States. Furthermore the United States is not a party to the framework establishing the court in question, and as such it has no binding authority over the United States.XavierGreen (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

We must pay careful attention to external sources on sovereignty (especially when discussing Pacific nations, which have a complicated history). The former Trust territories began to be considered sovereign states when they moved into Compacts of Free Association with the U.S. The U.S., however, has never stopped having control over some of their functions which are normally reserved for sovereign states (such as transit over their territorial waters). This is why a scholar has claimed that "...the security agreement would continue to limit Micronesian sovereignty unless surrendered by the United States." [3]. That is one reason to keep them listed under the U.S. entry. Another one is that these territories are often discussed as examples of associated statehood similar to the Cooks or the former Caribbean associates of the UK (including, but not limited to, our own associated state page). This gives the reader greater clarity regarding the position of these territories on the international stage. Ladril (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, here is what seem to me to be the current criteria for bulleting:

1. Associated states
2. Dependent territories (including inhabited and uninhabited, and regardless of actual control)
3. Subdivisions of sovereign states created by international agreements
4. Two self-governing areas controlled by Pakistan: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan

Of these, the one I find to be the least justified is number 3. I´m not sure the specific origins of subdivisions alone merit bulleting them (especially given the fact that we are not bulleting autonomous areas). I would be more convinced of this criterion if I could find a source where Hong Kong, Republica Srpska and Svalbard are discussed as similar instances. Ladril (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)\

The CIA world fact book commonly treats Svalbard, Jan Mayan, and the SARs as dependencies. The sovereignty over each of these polities by the possessor country is restricted by international treaty. For example, the PRC is obligated by treaty to govern Hong Kong and Macau in a specific manner. The Svalbard treaty signifigantly encumbers Norweigan control over Svalbard by granting a large number of concessions to the various signatory powers of the treaty (each signatory has the right to use Svalbard's natural resources subject to only minor Norwiegan restrictions, the citizens of the signatory states have free access, the islands are demilitarized), ect.XavierGreen (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's assume we treat Svalbard, Jan Mayen, and the SARs as dependencies (in a similar fashion to the dependent territory page). If you do a Venn diagram between "dependent territories" and "subdivisions of sovereign states created by international agreements", the only areas falling outside the intersection would be the federal areas of Bosnia. I'm not sure we need another category just for the federal areas of a single country. I would lean towards unbulleting the Bosnian units. This way, the bullets would represent three types of territories:

1. Associated states

2. Dependent territories

3. Two self-governing areas controlled by Pakistan: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan

In my view, it would be a good idea to reduce the number of bulleted items until they only encompass the three categories above. Ladril (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

But Svalbard, the SARs, and Aland are not dependencies, they are integrated portions of the countries which possess sovereignty over them. Bosnia's sovereignty over its federated bodies is limited by international treaty, it is forced to govern those areas in a manner dictated by treaty.XavierGreen (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The "not dependencies" argument is slippery, since formally overseas France, Greenland, and Aruba are also integral parts of their respective states, yet they are bulleted. I would say you would have to make a decision on what you would consider to be a "dependent territory", and would then have to consider unbulleting many items on the table. Or you could accept the view from the CIA factbook and treat Hong Kong, Svalbard, etc., as dependencies. I don't see how hopping back and forth between "they are dependencies" and "they are not" is going to help us move forward. Ladril (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

To reiterate, I would suggest that entities created by international agreements who are considered dependencies in the CIA World Factbook be treated as dependent territories. This way, we could remove the bullets from the federal areas of Bosnia. Also, only the three types of entities below would remain bulleted:

1. Associated states
2. Dependent territories (this would include all the areas we currently treat as dependencies, including overseas France, Denmark, and Netherlands)
3. Two self-governing areas controlled by Pakistan: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. Ladril (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

"Associated states" is as meaningless a phrase as "constituent country", as it does not denote any specific setup, but instead covers multiple setups which are each very different. Regarding the American ones, I do not think they should be bulleted under the US entry, although I agree that it should be mentioned in their extents as it currently is. If they are to be kept, it should not be under the arbitrary criteria of "Associated states", but under their current one as sovereignty limited by treaty, which would bring us back to the Bosnia question. Ladril it would also be useful if you were to expound on how you feel your criteria 2 and 3 differ, given I continue to feel that 3 is a subset of 2. CMD (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I must disagree with your first statement. There is a wide array of external sources in which the US associated states are discussed alongside other similar cases (such as the CI/Niue, the former associated states of the UK, etc.). Here is one example: [4]. While there are important differences between the specific cases, taken together they form an important analytic category that should be taken into account in an encyclopedia. That is my point of view, at least. I will respond to the rest of your post shortly. Ladril (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

If there is such a criterion as "sovereignty limited by treaty" this is not expressly indicated in the article under any of the entries. I don't believe the criterion really applies to the Marshall Islands et al., though I could be wrong. Also, introducing such a criteria would mean taking other cases into account (such as Liechtenstein, which somebody noted previously). Ladril (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all apologies for my earlier unhappy action in this matter. Second I must say that I agree with CMD. An associated state of country A, is not the same animal as an associated state of country B. Even if they are discussed alongside each other in the same venue (a book) somewhere. The associated states of the UK were not sovereign states at the time they were in existence in any discernible manner, while the associated states of the USA clearly are. The Compact of Free association of 1986 itself, granted these countries their sovereignty. I think it is confusing when sovereign states (like Belau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, that are considered as independent nations) are bulleted as "subsets" of another sovereign state, whatever further circumstances laid down in international agreements between them (which are not for us WP editors, to interpret per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), may be. Therefore I don't think we as WP editors can adjudicate these matters, as User:Ladril did above, as "similar cases". Point is that these countries were declared to be sovereign states by the very Compact of Free Association we are talking about here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I´m not "adjucating" anything. I just referred those interested to reliable third-party sources. That's neither WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH. Ladril (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

That having been said Ladril, correct me if I'm wrong however, the source you mention in this particular matter is inaccessible to me for some reason, with the exception of the index page. I am able to read the first one you mention. I do think that it can be said to speak about the consequences of what is basically an international agreement where the Pacific Island states are concerned. Most countries are somewhat limited in their freedom of action by international agreements, which are however freely and voluntarily entered in to. Although this compact is an extraordinary international agreement. I would be curious to know to what passages you are referring to concerning the second book you mention and how those would support your stance in this matter, specially about how different occurrences of "associated states" have similar properties that make them comparable to each other in regard to the subject of sovereign status or lack thereof. I've been reading these compacts of association where the USA is concerned and they clearly speak of sovereignty. I wonder however if these US compacts (but this is a place where I may be wandering into the realm of WP:OR) could be comparable to what once where protectorates. The comparison between this situation and former protectorates of France (like Morocco and Tunis) may not be entirely apt, but these countries were officially regarded as sovereign states, while in reality being treated as colonies. Could you give relevant quotes from the third party sources you mention? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You are correct Ladril that these various entities are often discussed together (and I am enjoying reading the sources you have provided), but that does not by itself grant any inherent meaning to the term, and indeed the sources you mention discuss entities in addition to the CFA states and CI/Niue. The "Associated Statehood in International Law" book explicitly notes in the introduction "A word of caution needs to be expressed here. The use of the terms 'Associated State' and 'Free Association' does not, of itself, aid recognition of the relationship that is the subject of this study...In fact, it is impossible to distinguish a priori Associated states from other dependant entities." CMD (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with CMD and Hebel. As interesting as it's been following this discussion and reading the sources, it still constitutes WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Offering a full summary of the book would not be in keeping with the format of discussion here. The idea expressed in this and several other sources on this topic is that territories such as these represent a special path to decolonization - one that is an alternative to both complete independence and integration into a former colonial power. Free association is an arrangement in which some areas, which would not normally have sufficient resources to become independent on their own, move into a form of statehood in which some of their sovereign functions are performed by a different state. This sort of arrangement is worth mentioning since it places some limits on the sovereignty of the areas in question. As a criterion it is at least as relevant as the "created by international agreement" one since it deals directly with the sovereignty question. Ladril (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly true that associated statehood is discussed as a path by which polities can stop being considered colonies while not being considered independent or part of another country. However, the conclusions you draw from that show the misunderstandings that may come of treating the term as a discrete category. There is not really a "this sort of arrangement". In the very sources you have provided, it notes that contrary to what you state, the Cook Islands and Niue have no limits on their sovereignty, being able to act as they see fit. CMD (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The association arrangements may be different for the US associates and the NZ associates, but in both cases they impose some limits on the sovereignty of the entities in question. The former Trust territories, for instance, do not have complete control over their territorial waters under the terms of their Compacts. In the case of the Cook Islands, they do not have their own citizenship, meaning that New Zealand determines to some degree how they should treat their subjects. In both cases the association arrangement allows an external state to exercise a certain degree of sovereignty over them. This is why I believe it is accurate to bullet them both. Ladril (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

All international treaties impose some limits on sovereignty. The sources you've provided note that for the CFA states those limits are more onerous than most, but they do not extend similar notes to the CI/Niue. The CI/Niue lack their own citizenship through their own sovereign choice, which they may unilaterally change at any time they choose. CMD (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Even assuming that, the fact remains that what is currently bulleted in the article 1) has no clearly defined criteria, and 2) reflects a wide variety of cases (the political status of Puerto Rico is not the same as that of Gibraltar or French Polynesia, for instance). We can spend the remainder of our lives nitpicking about specific differences between polities, but until people do not define a small number of broad criteria that are supposed to be represented on the table, things are going to remain as they have: everyone is going to keep bulleting/unbulleting entries using ad hoc criteria. This is going to result in lots of wasted time and energy for editors of this page. Ladril (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem with Niue and the Cook Islands is that they haven't actually declared sovereignty, while Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, that may indeed have agreed to more limitations on their freedom of action, have. Which is a difference of some importance. The issue here is how these entities self identify. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

All of the aforementioned have declared themselves sovereign. The association arrangements mean that they have ceded some of their functions to other states, but these functions ultimately rest with themselves. Ladril (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The CFA states have declared statehood, hence my aversion to inclusion in the USA's entry. CMD (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with CMD. The CI's and Niue however have not declared sovereign statehood. They have memoranda of understanding with New Zealand that say that the CI's and Niue must unilaterally decide their status before it can be said to have profoundly changed. Such decisions have not been forthcoming as of this moment. In other words "almost but not quite there yet". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The CI and Niue have declared sovereign statehood in several joint communiques with other states. Even if New Zealand says it does not consider them to be fully independent, that's only their point of view. The point of view of the other states must be taken into account as well in order to remain faithful to the WP:NPOV guideline. Ladril (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That has been said before by you and others on this and other pages about the matter. I consider it to be original research as the sources for these messages are in some cases doubtful and also the text of some of them has been heavily interpreted, as you probably know I have said before. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Other editors (me among them) have spent considerable amounts of time substantiating with reliable sources why they disagree with you. If you do not want to be convinced there is not much any of us can do. Ladril (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I know that, but I'm not convinced. Also not by the reliability and / or the explicitness (do they actually say what is added to the article) of the sources mentioned. Anyway, as the sovereign of the CI and Niue is the Queen in right of New-Zealand, explicit speech by that country, jointly with the CI's and Niue, should matter more than interpreted language in memoranda with others, the depiction of which by editors is again, doubtful in my eyes. The consensus on this page is as far as I can follow it, that the matter remains contentious, which probably means that some other editors are not convinced either. As indeed are some actual countries. But let me also say that this discussion should perhaps be better conducted on the talkpage of the relevant article. So I would perhaps have been better advised not to bring it up here at this particular point. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) As far as reliability of sources goes, what has been shown have been direct statements by the states concerned, as well as interpretations by qualified scholars that have been put into paper. So far, both of them agree that the CI and Niue constitute separate states whose sovereignty has been recognized by part of the international community. As has been proven with sources before, the "Queen in right of New Zealand" part refers to the Realm, not to one of the three states that make up that same realm. This is pretty much beyond doubt by now. If you cannot find a source that interprets current evidence in a way similar to your thinking, please consider whether it might be your own interpretation what needs revising. Ladril (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I am always willing to consider, but as of this point I'm not convinced all of the sources mentioned make direct and explicit statements on the matter. On another note, The Realm of New Zealand was first defined in in a description of the tasks of the Governor General. The Queen in right of New Zealand is an older institution than that, and she is the sovereign of New Zealand, so I still don't understand your above point. These memoranda are JOINT declarations made by three entities (of whatever nature) sharing the same sovereign. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we are: 1) straying from the topic of the current thread, and 2) trying to discuss several issues at the same time. I suggest we take a step back and continue any discussion on the eligibility of the CI and Niue on a different thread. It's been a long time since I last discussed this, meaning that I also need some time to collect the sources we have used to discuss the topic. Let's use the current thread to discuss the bulleting. Ladril (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course. You are right. As it is contentious in other ways..... we should leave it separate from this. As I've said before, I shouldn't have brought it up here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

So far, here's what seem to me to be the current criteria for the bulleting. To reiterate, this is not necessarily what I think should be bulleted, but what editors seem to have agreed to bullet:

1. National subdivisions created by international agreements
2. Associated states
3. Dependent territories (under a wide definition including those listed on the dependent territory page)
4. Two disputed entities controlled by Pakistan: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan.

My question would be: is it okay to add these as bulleting criteria to the main article space? Of course, there is room for improvement in the above text. I'm not saying it has to be set in stone. Hopefully, however, it gives editors a clearer idea of what should be bulleted and what shouldn't, according to current consensus. It also serves to maintain consistency across entries. Ladril (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Official name of East Timor

Given that we maintain a list of official state names on this page, editors might be interested in the discussion at Talk:East_Timor#Official_name on whether we should list common names as official names. TDL (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)