Talk:List of sovereign states

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured list List of sovereign states is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.


Why FYROM is not included in this list with a redirect to Macedonia, as Burma for Myanmar or Côte d'Ivoire for Ivory Coast? I tried to add it, but my edit was deleted. --Pierluigi05 (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Because "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is not a name, it is a placeholder when the entity refuses to use the actual name of the country: "Republic of Macedonia". It's exactly like saying, "the artist formerly known as Prince". It's not a name, it's a description. --Taivo (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it's not exactly like the "Prince" situation since in that situation, there was no pronounceable name, just an impossible-to-typeset symbol. In the case of Macedonia, it's simply that a certain bankrupt neighboring country, and the organizations that it blackmails, do not wish to pronounce its name. It's more like in Harry Potter where people choose to say "he who must not be named" rather than "Lord Voldemort". That doesn't make "he who must not be named" a name worthy of inclusion in a "Wizarding Encyclopedia" under "H"; it is merely a description in place of the correct name. --Taivo (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous cross-ref rows in the member and observer section[edit]

It seems erroneous that the list includes cross-reference rows in the section of UN member and observer states to entities that have neither member nor observer status; this is especially true for entities which have no status within the UN (Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Transnistria (with further cross-reference "Pridnestrovie"), Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Somaliland, South Ossetia). I propose that at least these latter rows be removed. --Kaspersu tlkctbact 09:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Israeli Civil Administration[edit]

This is the Israeli polity that administers the parts of the West Bank not under the control of the State of Palestine / Palestinian Authority. Its status is akin to that of the polities that make up Pakistani occupied Kashmir, in that it is not considered by israel to be a part of Israel. As such it should be bulleted under Israel's entry in the list, just as the two Pakistani controlled Kashmiri polities are.XavierGreen (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Since its been 8 days and no one has opposed, i have added a bullet for Judea and Samaria under Israel, in line with how the Pakistani administrations in Kashmir are bulleted.XavierGreen (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I reverted. There is no entity called Judea and Samaria that can be considered a recognized subset of the State of Israel. Furthermore the extrapolation from the Kashmir situation seems like OR to me. Not too sure about the Kashmir bullets either. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Regogniton is not a requirement that a polity be listed on this page. The fact that the Israeli and Pakistani occupational administrations exist is not original research and is well sourced within their articles. The inclusion of the Pakistani occupied Kashmiri areas as bulleted polities to be treated akin to dependencies (like puerto rico) and areas under which soveriegnty is limited by treaty (Hong Kong) was established by concensus on this page after a lengthy discussion. The inclusion of Judea and Samaria under israel in a similar bulleted fashion would follow the same logic behind that consensus. All three polities are occupational authorities for areas controlled and administered by a sovereign state, yet not annexed as an integral part of that state and thus should be bulleted.XavierGreen (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Pakistan actually claims the territories listed under it's sovereignty, whatever their status within that sovereignty may or may not be. That doesn't go for Judea and Samaria, which has not been annexed to Israel and isn't even a recognizable entity. "Following the same logic" is not something we do here. That is OR. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Read the relevant archive page. Kashmir or Gilgit–Baltistan are not claimed by pakistan. They are merely administered by pakistan without pakistan claiming sovereignty over them. This is the exact same as Judea and Samaria, israel administers the territory but does not claim sovereignty. Following the page criteria is not OR.XavierGreen (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Your repeated assertions that this isn't original research isn't something we can cite. Do you have a source for these conclusions? Jonathunder (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
What do you want citations on? There are about 20 citations on the Judea and Samaria page itself which back up everything that i've said: That the polity is officially called Judea and Samaria, that it is administered by Israel, that it is not claimed by Israel.XavierGreen (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Israel doesn't claim it as it's territory, while Pakistan does claim Kashmir as it's territory. That is also clear from the articles you mention. That alone makes that it has no business being on this list, which is about sovereign states and subdivisions thereof. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Also included are territories which are not part of the soveriegn states which control them: IE dependencies and occupied territories. Hence why polities such as Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Kingman Reef, Cocos Island, and Azad Kashmir are on the list.XavierGreen (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The fact that these areas are bulleted is indicated in the inclusion criteria notes at the bottom of the page.XavierGreen (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Dependencies ARE part of the sovereign state which controls them. Occupied territories are not. These items are bulleted because, while they may not directly belong to the "mother country", they are still a part of the sovereign territory of the sovereign state involved. Such goes for Azad Kashmir with Pakistan, and also for the overseas territories of the UK and other countries. Judea and Samaria doesn't fall into that category because it is only under military occupation. Israel is not the "mother country" thereof. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you read dependent territory, dependencies are not part of their "mother countries", instead they hold seperate soveriegnty which is subjugated to that of the administering state and are not incorporated integral areas of their administering state. Furthermore the Israeli's have a civil administration for the polity, the Israeli Civil Administration. Azad Kashmir is not part of the sovereign territory of Pakistan, it is explicty excluded under Pakistani law from being part of Pakistan. Instead it is considered to be an occupied polity under Pakistani administration, just as Judea and Samaria is an occupied polity under Isreali administration.XavierGreen (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether these areas are perceived as integral parts of the "mother country" or not, is beside the point. Dependent Territories are not sovereign entities by definition and they fall under the sovereignty of the state they belong to. Pakistan claims the entirety of Kashmir as it's territory. British dependent territories are what they are. BRITISH dependent territories. For the purpose of International relations they are part of the territory of the sovereign state involved. Whatever the internal workings or definitions that sovereign entity may employ. Besides, Judea and Samaria is not a dependent territory. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Pakistan does not claim Kashmir as its territory, as i stated before. Pakistani law is crystal clear on that point, so much in that the Kashmiri admininistrations are explicitly excluded from the definition of Pakistan in that country's constitution. Israel directly excercises sovereignty over Judea and Samaria through its Civil Administration there, just as Pakistan administers Azad Kashmir through its administration there.XavierGreen (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Azad Kasmir is described on the articles thereof as "self governing administrative division of Pakistan". I can't make it any clearer than that. It's sourced material by the way. [1][2][3][4][5]. Baltistan as a "mountainous region in Pakistan". You may have some misunderstandings about the difference between the territory "proper" of a country and it's wider reach as a subject of international law, where it come to dependencies. The relations between a state (Israel) and territories under it's military occupation (Judea and Samaria) is of an entirely different nature because occupied territories do not fall under that "wider reach as a subject of international law". Simply because occupied territory is included neither in the "mother country", nor in it's "wider reach as a subject of international law". What you are doing here is to add Judea and Samaria as a territory under Israeli sovereignty, which it is not. Not even according to Israel. While Azad and Baltistan clearly are polities under Pakistani sovereignty. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference brit was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Kashmir profile". BBC. 26 November 2014. Archived from the original on July 24, 2015. Retrieved July 24, 2015. 
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference GBOOK was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Richard M. Bird; François Vaillancourt (4 December 2008). Fiscal Decentralization in Developing Countries. Cambridge University Press. pp. 127–. ISBN 978-0-521-10158-5. 
  5. ^ "Territorial limits". Herald. May 7, 2015. Archived from the original on July 24, 2015. Retrieved July 24, 2015. These are self-ruled autonomous regions. 
I have no misunderstandings whatsoever, i have degrees in both Political Science and Law. I also was part of the lenghty discussion which set up the inclusion criteria for this page as well as the discussion which led to Azad Kashmir being bulleted under Pakistan. As i stated before and as is sourced in the relevant archive discussion, Azad Kashmir and Baltistan are not part of Pakistan, there is a wide array of case law in Pakistan which confirms this as well as the Pakistani constitution itself. Judea and Samaria are under an Israeli Civil Administration which i have linked to above. Israel directly administers these areas and exercises sovereignty over them without claiming the territory as a part of Israel. This is virtually akin in every regard to the situation in the Pakistani administered areas of Kashmir.XavierGreen (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
"Exercises sovereignty over them without claiming the territory as a part of Israel" is a contradiction in terms. The Pakistani situation is incomparable. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
How is that an incompatable statement? Throughout history various occupational administrations have excercised sovereignty over polities without claiming them. For example, United States Army Military Government in Korea, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact that a territory belonging to a sovereign entity is autonomous or disputed or even regarded as a dependency, (Administrative units of Pakistan definitely includes them within the sovereign entity called Pakistan), doesn’t exclude it from the territory of a sovereign state. From the main body of it perhaps, but not from the sovereign state itself. Occupied territories are a different matter. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Dependencies by their very nature are excluded from the territory of sovereign states, which is why they have seperate status under international law. See unincorporated territory for how this applies in regards to American territories. The wikipedia page administrative units of pakistan is not a reliable source.XavierGreen (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
If your're arguing that dependent territories don't belong to the sovereign state that they're dependent of, you are lacking in understanding of some very basic principles. I you equate that to unincorporated territories of the US, even more. If you can provide a source that makes Judea and Samaria a part of Israel, I'd be happy to see it. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Its not that they are not possession of their "mother countries" it is that they are not part of the territory that makes up the sovereign state itself, hence which is why they are bulleted in the list. Unincorporated territories are not part of the United States, merely possesions of it (hence why they are unincorporated). I am not stating that Judea and Samaria are part of Israel, rather that it is a polity administered by Israel, which therefore merits its listing as a bullet under Israel, just as Azad Kashmir is bulleted for the same reason under Pakistan.XavierGreen (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
You have to find RS backing up your contention as your own personal interpretation breaches WP:NOR. There's no point in continuing to debate the issue unless you can meet with policy. Policy trumps any form of local consensus, full stop. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

List of countries information[edit]

Are we able to include the capital and largest cities of the countries, the local names of the countries, their continents, their area (land, water and total areas) sizes, the percentage of the countries that is land, water and total, those countries percentages of the world's land, water and total, their populations, the percentage of the world's population that lives in each country, (their dates), their population densities, (and maybe all their ranks), their TDLs, their ISO-2 and -3 abbreviations, their official languages, etc. on a sortable table like on the German Wikipedia, etc. and if not, why?

And why was the criteria for inclusion section moved below the list of countries rather than above the list like it used to be?

Can we rename this article "List of countries/sovereign states and (dependent) territories/dependencies" and include dependent territories and constituent countries, etc. and if not, why?

And why isn't this article featured on the English Wikipedia like it is on the German Wikipedia? -- PK2 (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Taking Points 1 and 4 - yes, I think that these could be included, if well designed. The German list is good; we could copy that style. That would improve its chance of being listed. The last nomination was [1], which includes some suggestions.
Point 2 - don't know, someone edited it, does it matter? If you think it's better, then change it
Point 3 - could do, but I don't think it's a good idea - I think that the list is long enough, but it could be improved with the sort of contextual info that the German list uses.--Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
There are a fair few elements of the German article that I think are problematic. One of them is the order. The German article treats all states with limited recognition as the equals of states with full recognition. By doing so it accepts Abkhazia's claim to statehood and rejects the POV (which is near-universally accepted internationally) that it is part of Georgia. Every member state of the UN considers Transnistria to be part of Moldova, but the German Wikipedia takes the opposite POV. We're not allowed to do that.
We have had issues in the past with adding superfluous information because you end up with the question of precisely what information to add. These things are very rarely simple. I notice with interest that the German article, for example, fails to include all 11 national languages of South Africa, restricting itself to English and Afrikaans. It gives only a transliteration of native names in general, but gives the Chinese names of the PRC and ROC. We had long and detailed debates (in the archives) about which local languages should be included for which countries, until we finally concluded they were more trouble than they were worth and got rid of them.
In terms of including dependent territories and such like, if you include them you have to then answer the question, where exactly is the edge of what this list ought to contain, and why is that a sensible place to put the edge? We used to have such a list, including dependent territories and areas of special sovereignty and called "list of countries", and it was got rid of because those questions could not be satisfactorily answered. And bear in mind that a list of sovereign states, restricted solely to sovereign states, is the sort of thing that you would generally expect a paper encyclopædia to have and it would seem odd for this encyclopædia not to have one. Kahastok talk 19:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)