Jump to content

Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

UN membership POV

After a long discussion of the sorting criteria the current status quo was implemented. The result of discussion shows one thing for sure - there is no single sorting criteria of sovereign states that editors agree to be the most important one.

The natural desire is to divide sovereign states into regular and others. The former status quo defined "regular" as widely recognized, but of course this wasn't backed by any source and lacked definition of the sorting criteria. Some think the most important criteria is the lack or presence of sovereignty disputes/recognition problems. This brings the unanswered questions of "what's the recognition threshold to consider one state regular?", "who are all entities among whose positions recognitions should be counted?", "should we count recognitions or objections?", "how to count those who haven't expressed any position - as recognition or as objection?", "what's a diplomatic recognition?". Some think the most important criteria is the general acceptance as regular peer in the international community. This brings the unanswered question how to verify that. Some suggest counting recognitions, but this brings the previous questions. Some suggest checking for membership in important intergovernmental organizations with global reach. This brings the unanswered question which organizations to check in. Some editors suggest using the Vienna formula utilized to decide who's a sovereign state by many international treaties. Some editors think that there is only one such organization - the UNO. Those are supported by editors, who even disagree with the already consensus inclusion criteria and think that UN membership is requirement for sovereignty or statehood. They forget that currently it's the other way around (only independent sovereign states are accepted in the UN) and previously it wasn't even that (non-independent entities were UN members). They also forget that the UNO is one of many intergovernmental organizations, neither the first one, nor the one with most members. They forget that there are regular sovereign states who aren't members of the UN (the number of those is falling - from the establishment of the UNO to the present day almost all states joined it, so it's easy to explain why this misconception is so common among many Wikipedia editors, journalists and others preparing mass market atlases and unofficial/non-diplomatic "country lists" on websites). They forget that even according the position of the UNO they title as something like "world master" - there are regular states outside of the UNO. Forgetting all that is the UN membership POV. The obvious errors in it force them to push instead for another solution, as close to the UN membership POV as possible. The error of disregarding the most well known example of state non-member of the UN - the Vatican - easy, they try to say it's "almost UN member" because of the UNGA observer status it has. The error of disregarding all other important intergovernmental organizations with global reach (something that in the real world is explicitly avoided by the UN itself) and at least those of the real world Vienna formula utilized by the UN itself - they reluctantly accept, but still push the UN-membership-POVed by not utilizing the wording "Vienna formula", but UN System. Unfortunately the adding of observerships and the organizations list substitution brings some ambiguities. Some think the most important criteria is none of these. They don't agree with black and white divisions and insist the real world is more nuanced. They think criteria importance shouldn't be arbitrary (without a source) ranked by Wikipedia editors and they think in such case multiple criteria should be utilized and available for the reader to choose for himself. This was also consensus of the long discussion (despite disagreement of some editors) - the decision was to implement a single list (the regular case for Wikipedia list articles) with multiple columns (to be sorted upon by the reader) where defining properties of the listed states are shown. There was also consensus that the columns criteria should be those most prominently present in the long discussion - (in no particular order) - sovereignty dispute/recognition problems and membership in important intergovernmental organizations with global reach. The UN-membership-POVed editors were restless and they succeeded to slip under the radar, among the other changes, multiple further changes focusing the list on the UN and giving their POV presentative edge. They avoided upfront and frank discussion on "which criteria is most important?" and succeeded in presenting the UN as the most important one by the back door.

The status quo has two criteria dividing the sovereign states:

  • lack or presence of sovereignty disputes/recognition problems - represented by the second sorting column and mentioned in the lead as the second dividing method.
  • poorly defined "UN something" criteria - redundantly represented in multiple ways (and morphed into UN membership POV by placing "UN" everywhere):
    1. "Membership within the UN System" - first sorting column
    2. mentioned in the lead as the first dividing method
    3. deviation from the Wikipedia list ordering practice - utilized instead of alphabetic in the default list view
    4. "UN member states or observer states" welcomes the reader right after the table header
    5. "UN System" utilized instead of "Vienna formula" for the column title
    6. footnote text for the column title focusing on the UN
    7. "UN something" column prominently displaying the single UN observer (disregarding its membership in the other UN system organizations) and at the same time mentioning observerships in the other UN system organizations for none of the states - strangely the "Membership in the UN System" column has a cell with text "UN observer"
    8. sorting by the "Membership in the UN System" column places the UN observer above states having full membership in more UN system organizations than the UN observer.
    9. sorting by the "Membership in the UN System" column places an explicit dividing line separating 'UN members and UN observer' from 'Full members of many UN system organizations, participant in few UN system organizations and member of not-exactly-UN-system organization, full members of few UN system organizations, other states not participating in the UN system at all' - thus gravely deviating from the purpose of the sorting columns (to display nuances instead of a black-and-white division) and contradicting the column title itself (e.g. members in UN System organizations are placed "below the line" - an arbitrary undiscussed line)
    10. even when sorting by "sovereignty dispute" the alphabetic order is disregarded - the states with sovereignty dispute (including UN members) go to the bottom, but in the top part (separated from the states with sovereignty dispute by an explicit line) the ordering again is not alphabetic - and, guess that, UN members (and even the UN observer) are "on top". This contradicts the major reason for existence of the sorting columns - readers to apply the sorting criteria they chose.
    11. the lead method description of the "Membership in the UN System" column doesn't describe it (see above). Instead it describes the arbitrary deviation from alphabetic ordering (the "UN member states or observer states" default-view split).
    12. the descriptive list breakdown in the "criteria for inclusion" section divides the states depending on whether they are recognized by at least one UN member or only by non-members of the UN. So, recognitions by non-members of the UN (UN observer states, other states, other sovereign entities, other entities granting diplomatic recognitions or establishing diplomatic relations) are arbitrary "demoted" and classified as "less important" - they can't vote in the UNGA, so they are irrelevant [for the hypothetical purpose of getting UN membership] (one more place for the POV to be shown).

All of the above makes the article look as if UN membership is the most important qualifier for sovereign states and the exceptional representation and attention given to UN observer status makes it look like as if UN observership is a sign of belonging to some "upper class" of sovereign states (along with the UN members), distinct from states who are neither members nor observers at the UN (regardless whether they are full members in many UN system organizations and regardless whether they are widely accepted regular peers in the international community as shown by participation in many intergovernmental organizations, by participation in many multilateral international treaties, by having established diplomatic relations with not less states than some UN members have established relations with). It's even worse, because actually there is only one UN observer who gets this "preferential treatment" and this particular UN observer is kind of unique entity whose listing among the sovereign states has many strings attached (e.g. a duality between a sovereign non-state entity with a miniscule territory over which it has statehood, non-native population, whose permanency is ambiguous, etc.), and it mostly acts in its capacity of a religious organization and not in that of a state.

So, despite the long discussion (and resulting improvements) the article kind of remains where it started from - arbitrary, without a source, presenting the factually wrong misconception that "widely recognized and accepted regular peers in the international community are only the UN members and observer states". In addition it now has some other errors, glaring self-contradictions, discrepancies and vaguely defined criteria.

The discussion proposing return to alphabetic ordering (which will solve the most acute problem - the double representation of the "UN something" criteria) is here. But regardless whether that's accepted or not the UN-creep in the article should be removed, unless there is an agreement that UN membership is the most important qualifier for sovereign states and that UN observers belong to some "upper class" of sovereign states. Japinderum (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

So, despite protestations to the contrary, you do actually want to rekindle a dispute that gave editors here two years of grief then?
I'll save everyone else the bother of reading it by pointing out that the above - at least so far as I can tell - contains no new arguments. Kahastok talk 18:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course it doesn't contain new arguments, but it puts the matter in the clear - asks whether there was there a decision that "UN membership is the most important". If there wasn't such decision, then the article should be changed (if there wasn't such decision then the UN POV camp has hijacked the article, maybe per WP:OWN, and tricked the rest in accepting it).
In any case there are some glaring self-contradictions that should be removed. Japinderum (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Japinderum, we spend two years discussing this and came to a conclusion and reached a consensus. There were several polls and it was a very carefully crafted consensus. It's a finished conversation and you are just wasting your time trying to reassert the minority view again. --Taivo (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Taivo. Finished conversation, consensus reached. --WhiteWriterspeaks 23:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Taivo, your "very carefully crafted consensus" contains self-contradictions. Even if we disregard the UN-members-are-upper-class-of-states crafting by the back door - the self-contradictions have to be corrected.
WhiteWriter, I don't see in the archives a place where there is a decision to portray UN member states as some upper class of states or that UN membership is the most important criteria for sorting the list of sovereign states. On the contrary - the consensus is that this isn't the case and that there are multiple different viewpoints that should be displayed equally. I see that the UN-membership-POV camp has managed to outmaneuver the others (stating they agree with equal display, but then manipulating the editing process so that they get what they want), but the result is certainly not "carefully crafted".
I asked two things (and so far didn't get a reply from those careful crafting editors who implemented "the consensus"):
  1. is there a decision that UN member states are an upper class of sovereign states and/or that UN membership is the most important quality of sovereign states that should be utilized as main sorting criteria for the list?
  2. if there isn't such a decision, then why is the list portrayed in exactly that way and why aren't the other sorting criteria equally displayed as per the consensus reached? Japinderum (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Japinderum, it doesn't matter if there are contradictions in your eyes or not. The consensus is the consensus. You are wasting your time. It took two years of very hard work to build this consensus and it exists. We've heard all these arguments before and you have nothing new to offer. We are not interested in reinventing the wheel when the result will be exactly the same result we have now--it's round because round works best. Our consensus works. --Taivo (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The self-contradictions are facts, not my opinion. And of course articles can't contain self-contradictions. I don't see any consensus in the archives that UN membership should be the prime sorting criteria. Would anybody of the status quo supporters give a link to the archives where such decision is taken? On the contrary - I see the consensus is that there is no "black and white", "above and below the split", "top and bottom" way, that there are more nuances, that there are multiple equally important criteria such as diplomatic recognition, sovereignty disputes, etc.
You neither implemented the consensus, nor what you implemented works - it has self-contradictions. Regardless whether there is consensus for it or not - it should be changed. To correct the self-contradictions or to correct these and to implement the real consensus. Japinderum (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
"I don't see any consensus in the archives". You haven't read the archives of the mediation, then. A consensus was built and implemented. You are simply blowing hot air now and making claims that are not true because no one is listening to you. We've been through this before and there was a user named User:Alinor who, like you, simply refused to see consensus and tried to block consensus. See above where the archives list "discussion of criteria"? Read that and then read it again. You will see that a consensus was reached in spite of Alinor's repeated attempts to sabatoge the process claiming, as you do, a UN POV. It didn't work then and you're wasting your time now. At this point, you're just hammering at a nail that's already been driven, so I'm not going to respond anymore to issues that have already been decided by consensus built through extended discussion and mediation. --Taivo (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Please, point me to the place where there is a decision that UN membership is more important sorting criteria than diplomatic recognition and sovereignty disputes. Because that's what the status quo does. Also, regardless of that self-contradictions and inconsistencies have to be corrected. Japinderum (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Addition of the Turkish language in Rep.of Macedonia and Kosovo

An editor keeps adding the Turkish Language in the names of RoM and Kosovo. But according to the CIA factbook the Turkish minority is only 3.9% of the population (more precisely: Macedonian 64.2%, Albanian 25.2%, Turkish 3.9%, Roma (Gypsy) 2.7%, Serb 1.8%, other 2.2%) while the same CIA factbook for Kosovo doesn't even have any numbers for the Turkish minority there. For Kosovo other minorities such as Egyptians are mentioned: Albanians 92%, other (Serb, Bosniak, Gorani, Roma, Turk, Ashkali, Egyptian) 8% (2008). It seems to me that we cannot have the name version for Kosovo for every minority extant in that region, including Turkish or Arabic let alone Roma or Gorani who are actually ahead of the Turks in the CIA list. I think it is WP:UNDUE. The same goes for RoM. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Note at the head of the table: „The names of the items in the list are given in English, as well as in the official, national, major minority, and historically important languages of the state.” Turks are officially recognized minority in Macedonia as well as Kosovo and Turkish is official language of same municipalities in both countries. So, Turkish names of both countries should be listed. Otherwise, such names as Hungarian in Austria, Uyghur in China (only 0,61% of the population), Cornish in the UK should be deleted from this article. Aotearoa (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
This again? Honestly there seemed to be close to a consensus last time that the languages do noting to improve the article, some would want them removed whilst I would suggest setting a standard as what the article uses in it's infobox or lead. As it is it is just too open to nationalistic arguments and semantics (Cornish is an official recognised language in the UK, for example, so on the same level as Turkish. That doesn't mean it belongs here though.). Under the same argument for Turkish you should include Gorani, Romani and Bosnian in the Kosovo section, but having the same word(s) in 7 different languages isn't really going to improve the article in any way. Honestly I would vote for binning the lot and just having the names in English if that was a consensus.--23230 talk 07:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your remark about Kosovo: Under the same argument for Turkish you should include Gorani, Romani and Bosnian in the Kosovo section and to that we may have to include Arabic since Egyptians are also a minority in Kosovo. But aside from that, the main articles on the Rep. of Macedonia and Kosovo don't include their names in Turkish. Why then include them here? Is this a special article? If anything these languages belong on the main articles, if they qualify, not on a list article. Also there is no citation from a reliable source that the Tuskish minority, however small, is a recognised minority in either country and I don't think WP:NCGN supports inclusion of minority names on list articles in any case. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Than check all states – in half of them controversial languages are considered. But firstly the inclusion criteria should be changed (i.e. from the sentence “The names of the items in the list are given in English, as well as in the official, national, major minority, and historically important languages of the state”, languages of minorities as well as historically important languages [Turkish is historically important in Macedonia and Kosovo...] should be removed). Aotearoa (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
But like I said before, Republic of Macedonia and Kosovo don't include Turkish on their main articles. Why then here? A list is the last place one would expect to find such a naming parade. Don't forget this article only lists the sovereign states, according to its title. It makes no claims about listing its minorities or even its cultural histories. So it is quite a strange place to find all this irrelevant information here. A "list of sovereign states" should be just that: A list of sovereign states. Not a list of naming in a hundred minority languages. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, you are absolutely right. But problem is not only for Turkish in Macedonia or Kosovo (by the way, Turkish name is listed in Azerbaijan too). So, changes should apply to all similar cases, not only for this one language. Aotearoa (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The Turkish version of Azerbaijan was actually added yesterday by the same author who added the Turkish versions of Macedonia and Kosovo. But since my knowledge of Azeri matters is limited I didn't mention it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, the endless list of foreign language names is irrelevant to the focus of this article and causes more problems than it's worth. All the speculation over what is a "major minority" or "historically important" language is WP:OR. We have numerous articles (List of countries and capitals in native languages,List of country names in various languages, List of alternative country names) where this content is already included. Remove all but the English language name (long and short) and link to one of these pages for more details. TDL (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't even know about these other lists. The existence of the alternative name lists makes it even more compelling that these names be removed. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I support removal of all foreign (non-English) language names from this article. We're an English-language encyclopædia, long lists of names in other languages are irrelevant. We should only include alternate names when they are commonly used in English (e.g. Burma/Myanmar, Ivory Coast/Côte d'Ivoire and suchlike). Kahastok talk 17:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Well said. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. We either have only English language names or allow the plethora; there really is no feasible middle ground. I vote for English-only. --Taivo (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Recommendation for Languages

Clear consensus on removal of non-English countries names. KTC (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It has been suggested that since there are already lists for alternate names of countries and alternate names at the country articles, that all the names for countries except for English long and short forms be removed. It has become a constant headache policing them and they are available elsewhere on Wikipedia for those readers who might be interested. --Taivo (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

When's the last time eight editors agreed unanimously about anything on this page? --Taivo (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
And with such speed. I guess it was an idea whose time had come. Talking about time, isn't time we implemented this? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The longer we wait, the more comfortable the consensus will be (considering there have been past discussions on the issue with other editors), but considering the fairly overwhelming support I think anyone who feels consensus is complete and made the change would be correct to do so. CMD (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I'll wait for Kahastok to do the honours since s/he already made the edit. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done it as there's been no new comments for a few days. Thank you Kahastok for your preparation. -- KTC (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I saw this version now.It's so reasonable and excellent.Thanx Taivo.Maurice (talk) 08:09 ,17 June 2012 (UTC)
Kahastok did the actual work, I just put through the "paperwork". --Taivo (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Azawad

Any sources confirm that MNLA still control any permanently populated territory? Because same said "Islamists declare full control of Mali's north". Furthermore Caucasus Emirate still control some territories but is not regarded as de facto state. So, if MNLA has lost control over all territories, as sources said, or still keep small unimportant pieces of land, as in case of Caucasus Emirate, that mind Azawad is not de facto state at the moment. According to the criteria for inclusion: “For the purposes of this list, included are all states that either: (a) have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory or (b) are recognized as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state”. At the moment no sources confirmed that Azawad (MNLA) “often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory”. Aotearoa (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The "Caucasus Emirate" never had any territories under its control. It always was an underground organization. Hellerick (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Bosnia-Herzegovina not a sovereign nation

I move that Bosnia-Herzegovina be removed from the list of sovereign states. Simply, it is ruled by a foreign individual with absolute powers that are beyond and above those of: Constitutional Court, Presidency, and Parliament. I can't imagine a more reliable source than the foreign governor himself Valentin Inzko and his Office http://ohr.int. Some things are self-evident. Here the fact that Bosnia-Herzegovina is ruled by foreign sovereigns who then obviously share sovereignty over Bosnia-Herzegovina (appoint a person with viceroy-level unlimited powers) is a matter of common knowledge, and need not be declared by a third party. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed. If I co-own a piece of land with my sister, and someone claims that same piece of land because they live on it (even if it used to belong to their ancestors), then they don't own it until they own it, that is until we give up our shares in the ownership. Ansob (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

For the purpose of inclusion on this list article, a state is included if it meets the criteria for inclusion, which is based on previous consensus discussion (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). As Bosnia-Herzegovina meets both of this criteria, it is included on this list. How a country Head of state or Head of government (as you may like to think of the High Representative) is appointed is not a consideration. Many countries don't have control over its head, whether for example because it's a monarchy (absolute or otherwise), or because it's rule by a military junta. KTC (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the Criteria for inclusion on that list. It says that the list should include countries that (a) have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory, and (b) are recognized as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state. Which of those doesn't apply to Bosnia-Herzegovina? I don't know anything about the place myself, so I'm having to rely on the sources you offer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused by your statement that Bosnia-Herzegovina is ruled by Valentin Inzko. I looked at the CIA World Factbook, and it says that the head of state is "Chairman of the Presidency Bakir" [1]. That's usually a very reliable source; what is the better source you are using to get your information? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm assuming those two comments are aimed at Ansob and not me right? -- KTC (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I was asking them on [[User:Ansob's talk page, and may have indented confusingly when I moved them here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
For info (since Ansob is now blocked), the rule is "or", not "and". I would imagine that we can easily demonstrate that Bosnia-Herzegovina has declared independence and controls territory - but even if we couldn't, it would still be sufficient to demonstrate that Bosnia-Herzegovina is diplomatically recognised by another sovereign state on the list. We can easily do this. Kahastok talk 21:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the link, it works with "www", so http://www.ohr.int. Obviously, a state cannot be both sovereign and be ruled by a foreign individual appointed by foreign sovereigns. Check out that link: Mr. Inzko can overturn any decision made by anyone or any office in the country, including Constitutional Court, Presidency and Parliament. So the second criterion for inclusion in the list is not satisfied, as he clearly does have supreme power over the entire territory. He doesn't have to say "The country I rule is not sovereign", this is obvious from the very existence of his office! I'm not making any conclusion of or on my own as there is nothing to analyze and thus nothing to synthesize either. Those are simply the facts of the matter, and common knowledge. Links to third-party sources to "tell" you the obvious are not needed, obviously. Another important link here is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed. No independent source has to call the sky blue either. To me, it's those who included this country in the list of sovereign states that clearly do have their own political agenda in all this. Don't blame the messenger, I just tell how it is. CIA is highly unreliable as a source: they have been caught editing Wikipedia with false information, just Google it. Again, I cannot imagine a more reliable source than the (existence of) the first link above: the governor's office. Ansob (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you do not have any reliable source that supports your assertion that Bosnia-Herzegovina is not a sovereign nation, but only your assertion. I can pretty easily find an independent source that verifies that the sky is blue, if called upon to do so. If the only support for your claim is the existence of Mr. Inzko, you might be interested in this UN press release in which Mr. Inzko himself affirms that Bosnia-Herzegovina is a sovereign nation. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue

OK. You have been arguing about sorting them, but here's my point. They can not be here. They are neither de jure independence (still a territories of New Zealand but with secession rights like Greenland, French Polynesia etc.) nor de facto (no control, entirely New Zealand's military). There aren't any secession movement either. So what's the point of having them?Phanthanhtom (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is from Cook Islands: "The Cook Islands (i/ˈkʊk ˈaɪləndz/; Cook Islands Māori: Kūki 'Āirani[3]) is a self-governing parliamentary democracy in the South Pacific Ocean in free association with New Zealand...Defence and foreign affairs are the responsibility of New Zealand, in consultation with the Cook Islands. In recent times, the Cook Islands have adopted an increasingly independent foreign policy. Although Cook Islanders are citizens of New Zealand, they have the status of Cook Islands nationals, which is not given to other New Zealand citizens." Here is from Niue: "Though self-governing, Niue is in free association with New Zealand, and lacks full sovereignty. All Niueans are New Zealand citizens and Queen Elizabeth II is Niue's head of state in her capacity as Queen of New Zealand. Most diplomatic relations are conducted by New Zealand on Niue's behalf." As you can see these 2 states are not sovereign, the Head of State of those are the Head of State of New Zealand also (not simply the same, but through the position as HoS of New Zealand). This is why I believe these are NOT sovereign states. Tell me why they are a sovereign state. Not sovereign here, no citizenship or national control over territory, still parts of New Zealand under constitution. Phanthanhtom (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether we include an entry or not depends not on this kind of analysis (and I believe some here would dispute your conclusions), but on the article's inclusion criteria. In this case, specifically whether they "are recognized as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state".
If you check the archives (and particularly this page) you'll see that this point has been much discussed. There, and in the "further information" column of the table, you will find the evidence used to conclude that both meet that requirement. Kahastok talk 17:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course, there’re ‘inclusion criteria’. If Wikipedians change it for example whether they "are issue post stamp", so also such “states” as Alands or Tristan da Cunha will be included. Wikipedians can adopt such ‘inclusion criteria’ as they wish. And in this way Wikipedia create new reality, ant it is of course with line of Wikipedia rules... Fun play, but without any sense. 89.75.159.33 (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Azawad no longer meets the criteria for the page

The last town the MNLA controlled, Ansogo, fell to the salafists on July 12 [[2]], therefore Azawad ceased to exist defacto on July 12th, 2012. Since it has no territory and no recognition it no longer meets the criteria to be on the page and i am being bold and removing it since its status is akin to that of the Republic of Cabinda which has forces in the territory it claims yet no recognition and no control over any populated place.XavierGreen (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Status of Jersey and other British Crown Dependencies

I see a conflict between this article and that for Jersey. Here, the criteria for inclusion as a sovereign state are "(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states" all of which Jersey seems to hold, despite acknowledgement of British Crown rights in the Jersey constitution. This is re-iterated in the article on British Crown Dependencies and the same consideration seems to apply to Guernsey and the Isle of Man. Can anyone suggest a resolution, please? Should these states be considered sovereign in the context of this article? p.r.newman (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

They are not sovereign states and i would strongly oppose treating them as such. The criteria for inclusion list includes.. (a) have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory or (b) are recognized as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state. The first is certainly not the case, and i do not know of examples of sovereign states viewing them as sovereign states. I hope this wont turn into another Niue and Cook Islands, which caused major issues. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This speech by Sir Philip Bailhache, Assistant Minister to the Chief Minister. may help clarify the situation from a couple of months ago.[3] "The UK is the sovereign state with responsibility for our external relations. We cannot be a party to multilateral treaties or agreements like the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child because we are not a state." Also... "In the last 15 years things have moved on apace, with the support, to an extent, of our sovereign state." and "the report can be found on the website of the States Assembly and it concludes that, if it were necessary or desirable for Jersey to become a sovereign state, the Island would be able to cope." - So they are clearly not a sovereign state at this stage. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
One other even more direct quote from that i missed before.. "That is the strict legal position so far as treaties and conventions are concerned, although there is nothing in law to prevent a non-sovereign state like Jersey from entering agreements with other sovereign states and engaging with international organisations if they are willing to treat with us." BritishWatcher (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
BritishWatcher is right. Jersey has the complete capacity to be a sovereign state, however, it doesn't claim to be one. That's the key difference, otherwise I'm sure quite a few entities not on this list could make it. CMD (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
That answers my original question - thanks! p.r.newman (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are non-sovereign states. The United Kingdom is responsible for their external relations. In recent times, these states sometimes conclude international agreements in their own names but do so under "letters of entrustment" from the relevant UK minister. Example:

The UK Government is responsible for defence and international representation of the Crown Dependencies. In certain circumstances, the Crown Dependencies may be authorised to conclude their own international agreements ... within the terms of Letters of Entrustment issued to their Governments under the signature of the appropriate UK Minister.
However, being responsible for the Crown Dependencies’ international representation is not limited to simply entering international agreements; it should be read to include any international or external relations whether or not they result in some internationally binding agreement. — "Background briefing on the Crown Dependencies: Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |autor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

In law, the expression 'United Kingdom' refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; it does not include the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. For the purposes of international relations, however, the Channel islands and the Isle of Man are represented by the UK government.
…
International law has the primary function of regulating the relations of independent, sovereign states with one another. For this purpose the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the state, with authority to act also for its dependent possessions, such as the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and its surviving overseas territories, such as Gibraltar, none of which is a state at international law. - Anthony Wilfred Bradley; Keith D. Ewing (2007), Constitutional and Administrative Law, vol. Volume 1 (14 ed.), Harlow: Pearson Education, p. 33, 323, ISBN 1405812079 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

--RA (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
FWIW the OP appears to have misunderstood the criteria.
Before we start looking at whether a state has control over permanently populated territory, we need either a declaration of independence or evidence of formal diplomatic recognition by another sovereign state. This is as per the criteria listed under "a)" and "b)" in the criteria for inclusion section of the article. If there's no declaration of independence and no outside recognition - which is the situation with Jersey - the entity doesn't get included.
These basic tests allow us to avoid proving cases such as these from first principles. Without a declaration of independence, or evidence of outside recognition, we don't need to go into it further.
(Incidentally, even if there was a declaration of independence, it might still not get included, but we don't need to go there in this case.) Kahastok talk 22:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The general manner of thought is that the crown dependencies make up suzeraint states that are in personal union with the United Kingdom. In regards to the Isle of Man, the polity was an independent state at various times but submitted itself to the vassalage of England at various times. It eventually was sold to the crown in 1765.XavierGreen (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Guantanamo

No listing under either Cuba or the United States regarding the status of Guantanamo Bay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.88.25 (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Guantanamo Bay base area is considered part of Cuban territory by both Cuba and the U.S. The U.S. considers it to be property (not sovereign territory) under lease from the Cuban government, and Cuba (I assume) considers it to be occupied territory, as they do not recognize the lease. Evzob (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Its generally considered an American administered concession under international law.XavierGreen (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary action

Could some editor, user, admin give me a hand in rejecting this POV revert? Why would the TÜRKSOY not be important? Which reliable source says that? The WP has considered it as an international organisation worth to be dedicated an article in this encyclopedia. Every day I am convinced a bit more that some users see others as second class here, because this arrogant attitude cannot be understood in another manner... --E4024 (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Addition to my previous talk: TÜRKSOY may or may not be an important international organisation. It is not up to a user to decide that unilaterally. That is his/her personal POV. What is much more important here is this: We are talking about a country, the TRNC, which has "limited" international recognition. TÜRKSOY is an intergovernmental organisation. Being a member of an intergovernmental organisation is "important" for any state with "limited international recognition". This is why added that membership. --E4024 (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
This isn't the place for an indiscriminate list of every intergovernmental organizations that a state belongs to. Do you really think that we should add all of these to Taiwan (another state with "limited" recognition)? TDL (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, TÜRKSOY membership isn't restricted to sovereign states (Gagauzia, Bashkortostan, Tatarstan, etc are members). So it really isn't relevant to the scope of this article. TDL (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember building any consensus for reverting my contribution, twice... --E4024 (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD. You made a WP:BOLD edit, but it has been reverted by several editors now. The next step in the BRD cycle is discussion. If you'd like to include the content in the article you need to build a consensus for it on the talk page. TDL (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The UN POVed, self-contradictory and poorly defined nature of the article will continue to be the cause for similar confusions. Japinderum (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Name of Libya

The official "long form" or formal name of Libya is simply "Libya"


http://www.libyausaembassy.com/TheEmbassy/tabid/61/language/en-US/Default.aspx

http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml

http://unterm.un.org/dgaacs/unterm.nsf/c2f5f1ea9d52ce7485256dc5006e5940/99ae7b94b7830bdc85257338005b7747?OpenDocument


Ybgursey (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Armenia

The references of the non-recognition of Armenia by Pakistan has nothing to do with the subject. Turkey does not have diplomatic relations with Armenia either, although there have been official contacts in the past. The talks for full diplomatic relations were suspended because of Armenia's conflict with Azerbaijan. The matter has to be researched further, and I would be very surprised if Azerbaijan had diplomatic relations with Armenia. The matter is because of the status of Nagorno-Karabagh and disputes over the interpretation of events in the beginning of the 20th century. I suggest that the sovereignity column be left blank for Armenia pending further research.

Ybgursey (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


Non-recognition and lack of diplomatic relations are two completely different things. Non-recognition means ab ovo lack of diplomatic relations, but lack of diplomatic relations doesnt mean non-recognition. --maxval (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Then I suggest that the matter with Pakistan should be clarified, whether it is non-recognition or simply lack of diplomatic relations *with references* Ybgursey (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-recognition is just as it sounds, officially Pakistan does not recognize Armenia. In otherwords, in the eyes of the Pakistani government Armenia does exist as a sovereign polity under international law.XavierGreen (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Native Language

Please restore names of countries in native language and their transcription

Ybgursey (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

They were removed following clear consensus. If you believe it should be restored, please provide an explanation on why you believe it should be restored to see if there's a new consensus on doing so. KTC (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I did not take part in that discussion but entirely agree with the decision, there simply is no need for the native language names being included on this list. If it was just one native language name per country it would not have been too much of a problem, but with large lists for some states it become a needless amount of information that can be located in other places. The right decision was taken and had clear consensus. Oppose restoring them. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I also did not take part in the original debate, but I also agree with the original consensus, and with the opinions of KTC and BritishWatcher above. This is an English list on the English Wikipedia. Anyone wanting names in native languages can click through to the relevant country articles. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 12:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
They don't even need to do that. There's this. KTC (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to make a fuss about it, but including the native language mad it a more informative and interesting site. I, for one, found it one of its principle attractions.

Ybgursey (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear there's a consensus that the native-language names are a distraction on this page, but perhaps there should be a separate List of country names in native languages or similar? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
We already have List of countries and capitals in native languages, List of alternative country names and List of country names in various languages so I don't think we need another article. TDL (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sikkim

Would someone help polish the Sikkim entry? I couldn't get the "claimed by India" link to work. And the references are just bare URLs. I'm not very fluent in editting. Thanks for any help. Traversetravis (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed them as I don't think that they meet our inclusion criteria. China has stated that they recognize Sikkim to be a part of India: [4]. TDL (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. This explains why I once saw Sikkim in a Chinese geography book. Still, as it's not on their list of countries, it appears they're not recognised as a state, and were probably considered some sort of unresolved territory or something similar. CMD (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Sikkim was recognised as an independent country (by China) until 2003. Since that year no other nation has recognised its independence. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 17:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
@CMD: Just for your info, if you go back in time Sikkim was listed on the page you linked to. TDL (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Was Tibet recognised as independent by India in contrast? CMD (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I found this article from 2003 where India for the first time explicitly recognized Tibet as part of China. Other articles suggest that this was always their position, so my guess is that it was probably a case of deliberate ambiguity on both sides as a negotiation strategy in their broader border dispute. TDL (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

United Nations approved names

The article quotes the list of nations which are members of the United Nations. However the names indicated in the article are not in some cases the names under which these nations are accepted as members (as an example, but not the only one, the United Nations member is the Republic of Moldova. In the list, this state is incorrectly indicated as Moldova. If there is an official name of a state, why would wikipedia invent another one which is not officially accepted (even if it is currently used)? Afil (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What is official depends on which authority you are referring to. Wikipedia has a titling policy, WP:COMMONNAME, where subjects are called by what they are commonly referred to in English, rather than any official title. Generally, the same principle of being accessible to the reader and following patterns in the English language apply to text as well. None of these names were invented on wikipedia, but are simply the names commonly used in the real world. CMD (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Flag

More flag are wrong2.194.205.212 (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Libya

Currently, the description of Libya still mentions the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the fact that several states still recognize it as the legitimate government. Do we have current sources to back this up? And even if we do, does this really belong here? There are many cases where the government changes (partially or fully), and the new authority is not unanimously recognized (ie Syria, Mali). The point of the description is to explain "the extent to which a state's sovereignty is recognised internationally". Everyone recognizes Libya's sovereignty, they just (might) disagree on who the legitimate government is. The cases of the Chinas and the Koreas are different because there are RS which argue that these are two separate de facto independent states. The GSPLAJ exists only on paper. TDL (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it's even worth mentioning the GSPLAJ at this point. Not a very functional government. CMD (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Definition of states

The article in the intro clearly defines the definition of what is on the list. What is a state then? It is an entity, and if it is not, then the likes of kosovo, etc are not for this list. Using WP's own Foreign relations of the Holy See (and not Vatican) as well as the definition already on this page itself the institution of state is that of the Holy See. The Vatican is defined seperately on the said page itself. It is also the UN member (as cited on this page) as the Holy See. Quite ignorant and laughable to say this is not a list of entities but a list of states (and that too in contradiction to what the page defines it as). What is that differnece? Blind reverting, it seems?(Lihaas (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)).

Instead of attacking me, why don't you try re-reading the Criteria for inclusion section (including footnotes). We explicitly don't include non-state sovereign entities (ie the Sovereign Military Order of Malta). Also check out the Vatican's official website: "Its nature as a sovereign State distinct from the Holy See is universally recognized under international law." Vatican City is the sovereign state. Do you have any sources saying that the Holy See is a sovereign state? TDL (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Table

The table appears broken to me. The grey bars indicating UN membership etc. are clustered at the bottom of the table, even without sorting. I can't figure out when/why this happened. CMD (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

bugzilla:41886 and or bugzilla:41889 ? -- KTC (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed this as well about a week ago. I went back to the original diff where they were first inserted, and the sorting wasn't working even there so it's definitely related to some bug in the wiki software. TDL (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I tweaking the table, so the default sorting should be fine now. TDL (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestine

Wikipedia says that 131 UN member states recognize the State of Palestine, plus the SADR. the 131th is Granada. so 132 states must recognize Palestine.

Ybgursey (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Now it's 138.

http://news.yahoo.com/un-vote-recognizes-state-palestine-us-objects-222714646.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.137.78 (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's still 132 - as is clearly stated in the article you reference. There were 138 votes in favour of recognising Palestine at the UN, but 6 of those votes were from countries which haven't yet formally recognised Palestine themselves, though they may well be in the process of doing so. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 02:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
That's not true. The 138 that voted in favour are not the 132 recognizers and 6 non-recognizers. ~18 of the recognizers voted "abstain", one voted "against". ~28 of the non-recognizers voted "in favour". Japinderum (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Then change 131 to 132

Ybgursey (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The SADR is not a UN member. So while there are 132 states which recognize Palestine, only 131 UN member states do. SiBr4 (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The 2012 resolution text says "to date, 132 States Members of the United Nations have accorded recognition to the State of Palestine," - so maybe there is an unknown 133th recognition or they didn't counted properly (e.g. included SADR in the count or did some other error). Japinderum (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestine moved

So, what do we have now? Palestine with partial recognition and no territory under its control is in the 'higher tier group 1 of better and regular states' while the Cook Islands and Niue (without recognition problems and controlling all of their territory) and Kosovo (with recognition similar to that of Palestine and controlling almost all of its own territory) are in the 'lower tier group 2 of lesser other states'. Splendid. Continue to ignore the self contradiction and other issues I asked about here, here and here. Japinderum (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is now in the main group because it became a UN observer state a few days ago. If it was put back in the "non-members" group, Vatican City should also be moved. SiBr4 (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Not that I agree with the exact wording, but the "main group" is defined as "membership within the United Nations system" (see lede). Membership, not observership. United Nations system, not only the United Nations Organization.
So, Vatican is there because of its membership in numerous UN specialized agencies (part of the UN system). Palestine should've been there since 2011 because of its membership in UNESCO (part of the UN system). Kosovo should be there since 2009 because of its membership in IMF and WBG (part of the UN system). Cook Islands and Niue should be there because of their membership in numerous UN specialized agencies (part of the UN system). The whole long debate Nightw mentions below was to avoid the arbitrary "UN members and observers vs. others" division that was present in this list before that. Now, you say it's kept despite clearly defined otherwise in the lede. Japinderum (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Drop the stick, Alinor. Or even "Japinderum" -- the fact that you've linked to three archived discussions where multiple editors repeatedly explained to you that the sorting debate was settled is a clear indication that you are not listening. I don't think anybody has said that the current setup is perfect, but after years of discussion this is what has resulted from fair compromise. Get over it. Nightw 04:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Nightw, again with this Alnoir? I thought you finished with that long time ago.
The current setup is not simply "imperfect" - it contains self-contradictions! Nobody "explained" those at the links I give here - nobody even responded. For example the "Lead contradicts table" wrong counting 193-2-11 when actually there are 198 members of UN System organizations.
Other self-contradictions that nobody answered about are items 8-11. The rest of the points are about POV-pushing and you can label them part of your so-called compromise (but still nobody provided link to where this specific decision was taken).
As you are well aware the problem is in the poorly defined "UN something" criteria, that's actually an attempt to hide the old arbitrary "UN members and observers vs. others". Japinderum (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
193 isn't members of UN systems, it's members of the UN. If it wasn't clear to you that there was a difference between those before, perhaps the recent escapades of Palestine, where they failed to get UN membership yet obtained membership in the UN system, have made that clear to you. As Nightw has mentioned, every time you've brought this up, the other editors have disagreed. The time to step back was a long time ago. CMD (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
CMD, the article is quite clear about "membership within the United Nations system" (post debate text), not about "membership and observership in the United Nations Organization" (the previous arbitrary status quo). What's not clear is why the text doesn't match the numbers. Japinderum (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the lack of response to your second and third attempts was due to the fact that you'd already had it explained to you in the first attempt. I agreed to acknowledging your clean start under the condition that you not feign ignorance on old debates or use the new account to resurrect old discussions for more endless rounds of debate (like you did on the Diplomacy article). The link you're after is the last archive under "Discussion of criteria" (in the box on the top right). Nightw 13:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any explanation or answers to these questions. I see only editors avoiding those. I don't propose any changes - I simply ask editors who support the changes done already to explain what they actually mean, because those contain self-contradictions. And there is no clean start, dirty old account or whatever that you refer to. Japinderum (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Then we might as well press ahead with a discussion - though I also doubt that the status quo will change. But a consensus can change and I see no reason not to have a discussion to see if it has. Outback the koala (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, so will somebody explain the self-contradictions I refer to above? Japinderum (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It's high time this list take another go at Wikipedia:Featured lists again. I would like some input from other editors first. If there is positive feedback in about a week, especially from regular editors, then we should pull the trigger. Outback the koala (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As the editor who nominated List of countries for a successful FL all the way back in 2006, I would love for the current incarnation to be back at FL, but unfortunately I believe the list as it stand have no chance of being promoted given current standard. The reason for opposition the last time this list went up at FLC have not been addressed. Nominating it now would just result in a SNOW of opposition citing the lead being too short and the table not meeting accessibility. -- KTC (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a real shame. We've been over and over about making a lead - moving a section to the top and other suggestions.Is there no way to change their rigidly structured system. The accessiblity part, ie colour blindness, etc..., could be dealt with by us. A simple coloured legend chart exokaining the meanings of red and beige would be a simple first step. In my view such a legend would take up needless space, but maybe other do not think so. Outback the koala (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposition for a new country list

Please see at User:Maxval/temp! --maxval (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I like your list very much. It makes total sense to me, and seems to be very clear. It can still be sorted by "UN membership", but it also allows alphabetical listing of all de facto states, regardless of UN status. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 10:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Our current list already allows alphabetical listing regardless of UN status. I fully encourage any editors who want to present all the states equally here to spend some time editing the articles of the disputed states, with this equality in mind. CMD (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Table format

The rows for some countries lack border lines separating them from adjacent rows, and I can find no obvious pattern eplaining which do and which don't. Anyone knows? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Try scrolling down past them so they're out of the screen, and then scrolling back up to them. Doing this adds horizontal lines for me. Witchcraft or something. CMD (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't for me, but someone else sees borders where I don't (eg, between Argentina and Armenia) so looks browser-related, not entry content. Thanks. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Cook Islands/Niue Issue Resume

I want to resume this be cause of the similarity of the situation in New Zealand to those in Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK, in which the Sovereign State (or the Realm) is composed of several independent, but not sovereign countries. In the case of NZ, proper NZ/Cook Islands/Niue/Tokelau/Ross Dependency, in the case of Denmark, proper Denmark/Faroe Islands/Greenland, in the case of the Netherlands, proper Netherlands/Aruba/Curacao/Sint Maarten, in the case of the UK, England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland. In all cases, the "proper" regions is directly governed by the government (with the addition of Northern Ireland in the case of the UK, and Tokelau/Ross Dependency in the case of New Zealand), while the other regions have their own governments. This is why on the Vietnamese wikipedia page, they include Wales and Scotland, however not others.

So my proposal is that, if we continue to include Cook Islands and Niue in the list, be sure to include Curacao, Aruba, Sint Maarten, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Scotland and Wales also in the list.

Thank you. Phanthanhtom (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a list of sovereign states, not a list of all entities called "countries". CI and Niue are included because some think they are sovereign states. The Dutch, Danish and British constituent countries are definitely not. SiBr4 (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a very big difference between Niue, CI and Curacao, Aruba, Sint Maarten, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Scotland and Wales. The first two are quasi-sovereign, but the other are not. I see no similarity. --maxval (talk) 09:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
You see it, just some see it like that, and not others. Are there any criteria here? Phanthanhtom (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
In this case, given that none of these entities have declared independence, the rule is that there must be diplomatic recognition as a sovereign state by another sovereign state. Consensus concluded that this was present for the Cook Islands and Niue, and it was a relatively close call with reasonable arguments both ways (particularly in the case of Niue). There is, I believe, no evidence that such recognition exists for any of the other entities you name. Kahastok talk 18:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. There are arguments for including the Cook Islands and Niue on this list (for one thing, the United Nations has recognized both of them as having treaty-making power independent of another State) that do not apply to the other places Phanthanton mentions. (Personally, I'm not sure they should be included, but it's even more clear that the other locations mentioned don't belong on this list, though they might belong on some other list.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

UN System members

How many states have "membership within the United Nations system"? Japinderum (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

198. All 193 regular UN members + Cook Islands, Kosovo, Niue, Palestine, Vatican. --maxval (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, so why isn't the table sorted in that way when clicking on the "membership within the United Nations system" column (see items 7-9)? Why isn't that stated in the sentence "The membership within the United Nations system column divides the states into two categories: 198 and 8 others" (see item 11 and here) - currently the text is different? Japinderum (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the text has to be changed. --maxval (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
"Membership in the United Nations system" is a very vague phrase. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. This is why the current set up is, and always has been, a bad idea. Break the list into two groups: 1)the 193 members of the UN itself and 2)anybody else. UN members + UN observers is not a natural group as there are two different criteria that lead to a state being counted in it. To use a biological term, it's a polyphyletic group. --Khajidha (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not polyphyletic, it's groups that have been voted on in the UN. That's a clear clade. CMD (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The current criteria is not that, but "membership within the United Nations system" and that includes not only the United Nations Organization, but also others such as UNESCO, WHO, etc. Japinderum (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the current setup is bad idea (for different reasons - see above sections), but having "UN members vs anybody else" is not better - in gives undue weight to UN membership - contradicting official UN sources that we have describing that the signs for general acceptance in the international community are different from that. Japinderum (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not vague - it's quite clear - membership in one of the UN system organizations. Those organizations are listed at [5] and [6]. It's a separate issue whether exactly this phrase should be utilized or the correct one that is found in international treaties and other official sources - see Vienna formula. Japinderum (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the text after "The membership within the United Nations system column divides the states into two categories:" should be changed into "198 states with membership and 8 other states." (and the table ordered accordingly). Any other opinions? Japinderum (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Defining the term "membership in the UN system" as meaning "membership in at least one body affiliated with the UN" makes some sense, but it's not a definition I've seen commonly utilized, and therefore I don't think it's necessarily the best way of organizing this article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
One question is the description in the intro text, the second question is the Division of a table into two parts. In the intro text appropriate to complement the information on the States that are members of the UN sp. agencies. For example: The membership within the United Nations system column divides the states into four categories: 193 UN member states, 2 observer states in the UN, 3 states which are members of some UN Specialized Agencies, and 8 other states.
Division of table? Personally I prefer united table. Because here is not consensus for it in the long term, then I support the maintenance of the existing structure of the table. (Membership in the WB doesn't have comparable weight, or a comparable impact on the status of the entity in the international system, in comparison with the membership in the United Nations. I do not agree with the table dividing 198:8.) Jan CZ (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
As Jan CZ said, the long term consensus, despite everyone having their own quibbles with it, was for the current table. The text should reflect the table reached in this consensus. CMD (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Current structure of the table (two parts, 195: 11) is under the membership in United Nations. I think that there is a long-term consensus for it.
  • Intro text describes the differences only in accordance with the content of the columns (not of two parts of table). Description for the third column (sovereignty disputes column) is without problems (190: 16). A description for the second column (membership within the United Nations system column) is not entirely correct. Jan CZ (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, it's not "body affiliated with the UN", but UN System (title for a group of specific organizations utilized by many sources). I agree that "membership in UN system" is not commonly utilized criteria for general acceptance in the international community. The criteria commonly utilized in international treaties and organizations is the Vienna formula. Alas, after long discussion editors here managed to push trough the masking of Vienna formula as "membership in the UN system" - and the discussion here is not about changing that "way of organizing this article" (which I agree is far from best - but it seems everybody dislikes it for a different reason and that's why it stays - lack of agreement what's "best"), but about correcting the self-contradiction in the status quo. Japinderum (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
CMD, the long discussion was not about arbitrary cherry-picking and ordering-by-hand of the table trough compilation of personal opinions and then to stick it together with whatever weaselish/arbitrary criteria the result matches. It was about deciding on sorting criteria to use that's WP:V, notable and broadly utilized in the real world official diplomatic acts and documents of the international community. After very long discussion the two criteria selected were "membership within the United Nations System" (not only the United Nations Organization - criteria to not be UN-exclusive was important for taking the decision) and "sovereignty disputes". The table is result of the application of these sorting criteria to the list of sovereign states (already filled according to the inclusion criteria). Not vice versa. Japinderum (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Jan CZ, there is some misunderstanding. Nobody proposes dividing the table. What I said is that the ordering (inside the single list) should correspond to the lede description of the criteria, e.g. if the lede text is "the first of the methods/criteria is membership in Your-Favorite-Church resulting in 177 members and 107 non-members; the second of the methods...", then the order in the table (in default sort and sort-by-YFC membership) should be "YFC-members-with-A, YFC-members-with-B,...Z, YFC-non-members-with-A, B,...Z"; I prefer the default sort to be alphabetic (NPOV), but that's a separate issue.
The lede sorting criteria description text is not separate issue from the table ordering - they are the same - for both criteria (UN System and Sovereignty dispute) we have "The table column description divides the states into two categories:..."
The weight of different issues (memberships, disputes, etc.) regarding the general acceptance of an entity in the international community was the core part of the long discussion resulting in the current status quo. UN, UNESCO, IMF, WBG, FAO, ICAO, IFAD, IMO, ITU, UPU, WMO, WIPO, WHO, IAEA are part of the UN System, that's why their member states should be included in the "UN System" part of "UN System vs. others". Observership status to the various UN System bodies (including the UNGA), should be noted in the table, but it's not part of the sorting criteria (that point was also an important for taking the decision in the long discussion - the criteria is membership in the UN System, not observership). Japinderum (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Drift

As the discussion above drifted somewhat, so let's see what we have. After long discussion (check in the archives) the sorting criteria for the default view and first criteria column was established as "Membership within the United Nations System". Membership, not observership. United Nations System, not United Nations Organization or United Nations General Assembly. The proposal here is not to change that sorting criteria.

Currently the lede sorting criteria description text contains a self-contradiction, because after the "The membership within the United Nations system column divides the states into two categories:" it doesn't say "198 states with membership in at least one UN System body and 8 other states.", but instead mentions UNO members and observers - contrary to the defined sorting criteria. That should be corrected. The other correction is in the UN System column where Holy See text should be "Member of multiple UN System bodies" or "Member of multiple UN System bodies and UN observer" and accordingly for the rest in similar situation. Currently the UN System membership column text doesn't mention UN System memberships at all, but only UNO observership. Japinderum (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


I think the solution is NOT to divide the column at all, and list all the states is alphabetic order. And in this case in the column (that will be called "Status in the United Nations system" or something like that) there will be an explanation for every entry: UN member, UN observer, member of X, not a member of any organization belonging to the UN system. --maxval (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I proposed that at Benefits of alphabetic ordering and I still support it, but let's keep such proposals elsewhere and focus the discussion here on correcting the self-contradiction in the status quo. Japinderum (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody has a reason to disagree with the correction explained in my previous comment? Japinderum (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your proposed correction. The table breakdown and the column breakdown are out of joint. No one has explained why UN Observership is basically being treated the same as UN Membership. These are two different things. Either move the Observers to the second portion of the table or move any state with any UN affiliation (Cook Islands, Kosovo, Niue, Taiwan) to the first portion of the table. --Khajidha (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Done. Japinderum (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Japinderum, just because you've opened an nth discussion on this issue does not mean you can now go ahead and make whatever change what you want, especially given that there was not agreement in the main section above. This refusal to drop your stick is quite disruptive. CMD (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Nobody voiced disagreement and Khajidha voiced agreement. Also, nobody has given any reason for the contradiction between the criteria utilized "Membership in the United Nations System" and the text I changed (with one that isn't contradicting the criteria). Japinderum (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Nobody voiced disagreement? You know very well by now that others disagree, don't play dumb. There's no reason to expect them to respond to another one of your campaigns. Furthermore, Jan CZ said above "I support the maintenance of the existing structure of the table...I do not agree with the table dividing 198:8." It could not be more explicit. "Membership within the United Nations system" is just the column title. It's described as a column that "divides the states into two categories: 193 member states and two observer states in the United Nations,[1] and 11 other states." We can call it "Column 1" if you prefer. CMD (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Jan CZ hasn't replied to my explanation in the above thread about what you quoted.
"Membership within the United Nations system" is not just the column title - it's the longsought consensus (as you call it) result for sorting criteria. As I said - the long discussion and resulting consensus is about defining a sorting criteria, not about arbitrary assembled/cherry-picked groups of states (the same that we had before the discussion). Japinderum (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
When will you understand that just because someone has not replied does not mean they agree with you? The long discussion and consensus included draft tables, which we all viewed. Lawyering about it won't help. CMD (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem with the status quo that the long discussion sought to correct was the lack of defined sorting criteria and the utilization instead of an arbitrary assembled groups of states. Now you are lawyering about utilizing the same arbitrary approach in reverse and contrary to the result of the long discussion.
The long discussion is about selection of sorting criteria. Two criteria were selected: "Membership within the United Nations system" and "Sovereignty dispute". The draft tables are result of the implementation of those criteria - not vice versa. Japinderum (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
CMD, I'll wait somewhat more for you to explain the reasons to keep the self-contradicting version and to explain why do you think the article should deviate from the longsought consensus to use "Membership within the United Nations System" as one of the sorting criteria. Japinderum (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Japinderum, the consensus was explicitly for "Two categories: UN members + observers, Others". Explicitly. CMD (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
That's one of many polls in the process and is only one of the tools and venues utilized for guiding the discussion. As you can see even at the link you gave - other editors explained it clearly: "UN members + observers" is the pre-discussion arbitrary grouping lacking a defined criteria. Afterwards it was decided one of the sorting criteria to be "Membership within the United Nations System" - and that's written in the current status quo. Japinderum (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, are you saying that you think the final consensus of that debate was misread? If that is what you are saying, then please go ask some uninvolved admins to review it or something. If I can remember correctly, you were inactive at that time, but editors agreed that the years of discussion needed to come to a lasting end and that a final poll would determine the permanent outcome. The poll was done, and Chip has shown you the link to the result (which most editors would describe as a firm consensus). If you disagree with that consensus, tough. If you see a different consensus, then ask someone to review the discussion. If you think the words "membership within the United Nations system" is conflicting with how it is actually being sorted, then reword it. Maybe we forgot to reword that when the table was changed last year. Nightw 14:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that your great consensus about the sorting criteria is non-existing? That what you did was to keep the pre-discussion situation, where there is no sorting criteria, but an arbitrary cherry-picked group of "we feel those are the main states" vs. "others"? And then you slapped to that whatever convoluted mathematical definition it fits? Japinderum (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorting criteria

From the above discussion it seems there is a confusion about what is the sorting criteria utilized as method1 (for default view and column1). In the status quo it's written as "Membership within the United Nations System". Despite of that some editors push to keep a contradictionary leftover from the time before the long sorting criteria discussion (the arbitrary cherry picked non-category of "UN members + UN observers" that even the UN itself disagrees with - point 79 and below) and try to state that there is no contradiction and that "Membership within the United Nations System = UN members + UN observers" (which is obviously wrong). Japinderum (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's written as "The membership within the United Nations system column divides the states into two categories: 193 member states and two observer states in the United Nations,[1] and 11 other states." The title of the column is that, the title of the column. The criteria utilised is in that column is laid out afterwards. Feel free to propose a new column title, if you so desire. CMD (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The arbitrary "UN members + UN observers" is leftover from the pre-discussion version. The long discussion about sorting criteria settled on "membership within the United Nations system" as one of the sorting criteria (the other being "sovereignty disputes"). You are free to propose a change to the sorting criteria. But the leftover contradicting the current consensus sorting criteria should be removed now. Japinderum (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I note my objection to the biased RFC summary.

The prior discussion essentially hinged on whether and how the list should be split. Some wanted a far stronger and more permanent split in the article than is currently present. Others wanted the list to be purely alphabetical. There was also significant dispute, if there was to be a split, on how the split should be implemented. It became clear that there was no perfect answer and so tables were mocked up, checked, voted on. Eventually, the point was resolved with the status quo. The status quo was a compromise where nobody got everything they wanted. This is, I believe, a strong point in its favour as a consensus.

The difference that the OP notes between the default split and the name of the UN system column is certainly present. But there is no contradiction. This was deliberate.

The idea behind the difference between the column title and the default split is that the two play different roles. The basic split is between UN members and observers on one hand and other states on the other. It's a pretty coarse split but it does the job intended. However, if the user wants a more fine-grained split based on UN status they can have it by clicking on the sort button.

If you sort by UN status you resolve not to two categories as Japinderum appears to believe but to five categories. Members, observers, members of specialised agencies, former members, and no status. If his/her contention were correct that the previous consensus was to use purely that column, it is difficult to see how that resolves into the two sections he describes. In this case, the logical conclusion would be to have five categories, one for each of the different situations recognised by the contents of that column.

Japinderum's contention that UN members and observers is a leftover from the old system is false. If it had been, there are plenty of people who would have noticed and complained. You don't spend years hammering out a consensus without checking that the consensus has been carried through. But even if you assume that, leaving some leftover would have been quite a difficult mistake to make technically. The old system was really quite different from the status quo: the Wiki-table was completely new. Kahastok talk 11:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Kahastok, the sort by column1 doesn't result in what you say (the ordering is slightly different), but the contradiction I refer to above is elsewhere - the sorting criteria "Membership in the UN System" is wrongly "explained" as being "UN members + UN observers". From your words above it seems that somebody mixed up "default sort" and "column1 sort" descriptions into the sentence describing the "first method for dividing the states - Membership in the UN System". Whether default sort should be different from column1 sort is a separate issue. Japinderum (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Japinderum, please, drop the stick. You are constantly asking question about this, but consensus is rock solid and very large. "UN members + UN observers" is NOT wrongly explained, that is wiki wide consensus that should not and can not be changed with this miserable RfC, but on much larger and better scale than this. Please, stop raising the same questions over and over again. --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The "rock solid" version that you all so much love contains multiple self-contradictions (see here and here and above two sections). One of them is the wrong explanation of the "first method for dividing the states - Membership in the UN System" where the text says it is "UN members + UN observers", which is obviously wrong as seen above multiple editors have clearly stated that this is not true. Kahastok gave a meaningful explanation - a mix-up between "default view sort" and "first column sort" methods' explanations.
So, in the sentence starting with "first method for dividing the states - Membership in the UN System" the continuation should be corrected. This doesn't mean that the "default sort" will be changed - it will remain the arbitrary "UN members + UN observers" (and it doesn't need adding anything else as it already has "explanation" - the arrowed rows in the default view table sections. I don't agree with that setup, but at least it will be less self-contradicting that what we have now. Japinderum (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The short name of the Czech Republic (Czechia)

The short name of the Czech Republic is missing from the article. I have added the name, but Zntrip him repeatedly deleted on the grounds that this is is not the "common" name. Of course, more common is the use long (Czech Republic) than short (Czechia) name. But I think that is the only criterion for selection on places, where only one name is used for states. Here in this table are, however, placed the both names of the states. There is therefore no need to choose. Both names should be given. The criterion for entry should be the official codification of the name. While the "Dominican" is "uncommon" and non-codified the name and cannot be added, Czechia is at least used but officially codified name. Czechia is official short name of the Czech Republic. I think that there is no relevant reason for its omission. Jan CZ (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I would oppose your change because it represented "Czechia" as a standard English-language name, which it isn't. The fact that a name is codified should not necessarily be meaningful if it is almost entirely unused. But in any case, to effect the change you wanted, I believe the correct thing to do would be to go to Czech Republic and move that article. This article should merely be reflecting the article titles used in the articles concerned, with only the most obvious exceptions (needless disambiguation in Georgia (country), project-wide consensus in Republic of Ireland). This is not such a case. Kahastok talk 18:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm a 50-year-old native English speaker with a keen interest in geography and history, and I don't believe I have ever heard the name "Czechia" used. Are there reliable sources confirming that this is a name that is used for the country in English? (Note that this is a completely different question from what name might be used for the country in Czech.) Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
This subject has been discussed and documented in the article Name of the Czech Republic. That article's lead paragraph confirms that whilst "Czechia" is technically the official English short form name of the country, the term is virtually unknown amongst English speakers. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 20:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I've never heard "Czechia" from a native English speaker - in fact, even among my European acquaintances, the short form in casual English speech seems to be "Czech", not "Czechia" (though I realize this is not standard, and probably not common or well-documented enough to warrant inclusion here). We can debate whether our "short form" field lists the commonly used English form (which in this case is either "Czech Republic" or just zero) or the official form ("Czechia"), but I tentatively favor the former. Evzob (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Just as a note, our article currently uses the common English form, not the official one, hence entries such as Burma and East Timor. CMD (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

China / Taiwan

I see there says China (PRC) is claimed by Taiwan(ROC), but I think it's the other way: Taiwan (ROC) is claimed by China (PRC). Călușaru' (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It's both true. PRC claims the territory control by ROC, and at the same time ROC claims the territory control by the PRC. KTC (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

UN System membership column cells text

This edit is because "as the note at the top of the column says, we only list UN membership and specialized agencies."

While the footnote of the column contains as part of the explanation the sentence "It also indicates which non-member states participate in the United Nations System through membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency or one of the specialized agencies of the United Nations.", that doesn't mean that the cell text should NOT indicate what the column heading states, e.g. "Membership within the UN System". Not indicating that is inconsistent and self-contradicting.

To correct that I suggest the following changes to be applied to the latest Danlaycock version, in that column's cell texts (item1 is current, item2 is proposed text):

Japinderum (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And just because the title of the column is "Membership within the UN System" doesn't mean that we MUST list every last organization related to the UN. While I understand that you disagree with our choice to only list certain organizations within the UN System, that doesn't make it either "inconsistent" or "self-contradicting". It's a perfectly reasonable decision, for which a prior consensus has been established.
Also, the WHO WTO isn't formally part of the UN System, so to use your argument it would be both "inconsistent and self-contradicting" to list it under the heading "UN System". If you're that concerned about the title, we could change it to "Membership in the UN and its agencies" or something along those lines. TDL (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Not "every last organization related to the UN", but only those of The UN System. It's a specific list. It includes both WHO and WTO. Of course, in the source there is a paragraph explaining that status of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is more complex - no "formal agreement with the UN", but "de facto arrangements", "exchange of letters about the relationship", "UN resolution". If required a sentence about that can be added to the footnote.
"choice to only list certain organizations" - here "certain" can't be an arbitrary list cherry-picked by Wikipedia editors. That's why the column is not titled "Membership within organizations we selected".
I don't disagree with what you said, but with the inconsistent and self-contradicting way in which it was done. You want to list only "Vienna formula" organizations (where we have sources explaining why that should be done, what's its meaning, etc.), but you don't want to use that (what's the reason, btw?) and resorted to "UN System" heading instead (aggravating the UN POV problem), because the other options are too unwieldy or otherwise unsuitable. I may disagree with that (or you may disagree with the consequences of that choice), but that's what we have, so "Membership within the UN System" column should mention that membership and not something else. Whether you want to propose a change to the column heading is a separate issue (but I assume arguments about the alternative titles were already discussed and there are no new ones?). Japinderum (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
If you find problematic only the WTO/Taiwan cell, then let's correct the Vatican/CI/Niue cells as shown above and we'll discuss the WTO additionally. Japinderum (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Please explain: which other "UN System" organizations actually have members? And of these, which are CI or Niue members of?
If you want to mention every UN System organization that a state is a member of, you will of course also need to add "Member of multiple UN System organizations" after every single UN member state. Strangely, you don't seem to be concerned about this "inconsistent and self-contradicting" fact.
I have no desire to change the column title. You raised a concern, I simply provided a solution for your concern. If you don't like my solution, then that's fine with me. The column heading/contents are perfectly acceptable the way they are. You've been beating this poor horse for what, three or four years now? Time to let it RIP. TDL (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding WHO, WTO and "other" organizations - see [7]UN System Organizational Chart: WHO, WTO, OPCW, CTBTO PrepCom.
The change is not because there are "other" UN System organizations that Vatican/CI/Niue are members of, but because that's the column heading.
For the UN members the footnote "All United Nations members belong to at least one specialized agency and..." can be expanded with "and one other UN System organization and..." and there are also other options of dealing with that, but I assume you don't agree with those.
So, is there any reason to keep the inconsistent (with the column heading) Vatican/CI/Niue cells (item1 above)? The proposed item2 text is a minuscule change correcting the inconsistency. Japinderum (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I mistyped WHO instead of WTO previously. The WHO is a specialized agency.
If CI/Niue aren't members of any other UN System organizations (or if there aren't even any other UN System organizations which have members), then your argument to change the text is extremely silly. We can convey more precise information by saying "specialized agencies" than "system organizations". The column contains various types of UN Systems organizations. We simply break it down by category. Would you like to replace every instance of "UN member state" with "Member of UN System organizations"? This is equally as "inconsistent" as listing specialized agencies. TDL (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
WHO or WTO, both are listed in the UN System sources above.
About the UN members' membership in other UN System organizations - I already told you above - we can do the same as currently done with their membership in specialized agencies - clarify that in the footnote.
About "other organizations" - I already showed you "[8]UN System Organizational Chart: WHO, WTO, OPCW, CTBTO PrepCom.". Leaving aside WHO and WTO, CI and Vatican are members of OPCW and CTBTO and Niue of OPCW. Japinderum (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
As per the UN itself, neither OPCW or CTBTO are part of the "UN System". They are listed as related organizations here. If they aren't formally part of the UN System, the don't belong in this column. TDL (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
They do not participate in the CEB, but the UN System Organizational Chart clearly includes them. As it's clearly shown the "related organizations" is about them being "related organizations to the UN General Assembly", like the specialized agencies are to the UN ECOSOC, like ICTY/ICTR are to the UN Security Council, etc. Japinderum (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
No, they're related to a UN System organization, but they aren't formally part of the UN System: "Although the OPCW is not formally a part of the UN system". Thus it would inconsistent and self-contradicting to list them under this heading. TDL (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
That interpretation may be correct since both OPCW and CTBTO aren't mentioned at [9] (you can see the list of the 29 UN System institutions with emblems, dates of joining the UN System, explanations). Nevertheless I think the shorter texts are better, but expect you to disagree. Japinderum (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
TDL, does this mean that you retract your opinion that OPCW and CTBTO are "UNGA related, not UNSystem related"? So, they are not UNSystem CEB members, but are still UNSystem related, is that what you mean? If so, we can move them from "see also" to "related" section at United Nations System and use item2 texts here.
In support of that opinion of yours you can see official United Nations System of Organizations list - included are WHO, UNESCO, IMF, WBG, IAEA, WTO (and others, bolded because they are UNSystem CEB members) and also OPCW and CTBTO (and others, not bolded). Japinderum (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
How can I retract an opinion I never had? If they're related to the UNGA, then they must also be related to the UN system since the UNGA is part of the UN System. Of course, that doesn't make them "a UN Systems organization" and hence they don't belong in the footnote. TDL (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
So, in your opinion what is the definition of "UN System organization"? Everything related to the UNGA? Everything related to the UNSystem? Everything member of the UNSystem CEB? You seem to invent a new definition every time depending on what suits you best for the particular debate. I think we should stick to the sources such as the one right above. Japinderum (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

UN System column heading footnote

Related to the above discussion I propose the following change in the footnote at "Membership within the UN System [Note 1]" (item1 is current, item2 is proposed text, item3 is proposed text after CMD comment):

  1. This column indicates whether or not a state is a member of the United Nations.[1] It also indicates which non-member states participate in the United Nations System through membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency or one of the specialized agencies of the United Nations. All United Nations members belong to at least one specialized agency and are parties to the statute of the International Court of Justice.
  2. This column indicates whether or not a state has membership within the United Nations System by being member of the United Nations[1] or another UN System institution[2] such as the specialized agencies of the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the World Trade Organization.[Note 1] All United Nations members belong to at least one more UN System institution and are parties to the statute of the International Court of Justice.
  3. This column indicates whether or not a state is a member of the United Nations.[1] It also indicates which non-member states participate in the United Nations System[2] through membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency, one of the specialized agencies of the United Nations or the World Trade Organization.[Note 1] All United Nations members belong to at least one specialized agency and are parties to the statute of the International Court of Justice.
Footnotes
  1. ^ a b The status of the World Trade Organization in the UN System is complex, because unlike the specialized agencies it doesn't have a formal agreement with the UN, but its relationship with the UN is defined by exchanges of letters and UN resolutions.[3] Like any other specialized agency's head the WTO's is part of the United Nations System Chief Executives' Board for Coordination.[3]
References
  1. ^ a b c Press Release ORG/1469 (3 July 2006). "United Nations Member States". United Nations. Retrieved 28 February 2011.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ a b The United Nations System organizational chart
  3. ^ a b "The UN System, Chief Executives Board for Coordination". Unsceb.org. Retrieved 2013-01-22.

Japinderum (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The system is not equivalent to the UN, it is subsidiary. This is yet another attempt to try and change the list organisation to your preference, and as with the other attempts, you should drop this one too. CMD (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - for all the reasons explained above. What more is there to say about this? TDL (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
TDL, above you said WTO status is somewhat different from the other UN System institutions, and here I only propose adding a sourced redaction explaining that difference. Any reason to oppose that? Japinderum (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not "somewhat different", it's not formally part of the UN System and thus doesn't belong under that heading. And your aren't "only propose adding a sourced redaction explaining that difference". You're trying to broaden the scope of the footnote so that a week from now you can come back and claim that it's "inconsistent and self-contradicting" that we don't list membership of WTO for individual states. TDL (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no such intention - as I explained to you - the footnote already mentions that: "All United Nations members belong to at least one specialized agency and are parties to the statute of the ICJ". I don't nitpick that this sentence doesn't mention explicitly the IAEA ("not exactly" a specialized agency), and I don't regarding the WTO. Besides, if we use item2 text it says "at least one more UN System institution" thus covers specialized agencies, IAEA and WTO. I don't propose mentioning UNESCO or IMF on every row and I won't propose that for IAEA and WTO either.
I don't want to "broaden the scope of the footnote" or of the column. The scope is clear - "Membership within the UN system".
WTO doesn't have a formal agreement with the UN, but its relationship with the UN is defined by exchanges of letters and UN resolutions. That's different from "it's not formally part of the UN System" - it's part, but its participation is defined by documents different from those utilized by most of the other participants. Please read the footnote above and the source - you can see the list of the 29 UN System institutions with emblems, dates of joining the UN System, explanations. Japinderum (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Your WP:FRINGE theory is explicitly disputed by multiple sources (including the UN itself): "the World Trade Organization, which is not part of the UN system" "It is true that the key global trading organisation, the WTO, is not part of the UN system" "WTO is the only major international organization that is not part of the UN system". Do you have a single source that says: "WTO is a part of the UN System"? TDL (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Your sources mention the issue in a passer-by simplified way. One is a procurement portal and WTO doesn't participate in that, the other is a volunteer organization, the third is educational institution. In contrast the official UN site "The UN System" clearly includes the WTO among the other UN system institutions. It also devotes a whole paragraph to the "status of the WTO" and what I propose here is only to add a footnote derived from that paragraph (e.g. by removing dates, names of officials, etc.):
"The status of the World Trade Organization in the UN System is complex, because unlike the specialized agencies it doesn't have a formal agreement with the UN, but its relationship with the UN is defined by exchanges of letters and UN resolutions.[3] Like any other specialized agency's head the WTO's is part of the United Nations System Chief Executives' Board for Coordination.[3]" - no part of that text is unsourced. Japinderum (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah jeeze, who would believe an educational institution, over Japinderum's unsourced opinions?
I never said the footnote was unsourced. I said your argument that "it's part" of the UN System was unsourced. You can criticize my sources all you like, but even 3 questionable sources beats zero sources any day of the week. And no, your source which conveniently leaves the WTO out of its list of UN System organizations ("The United Nations system is made up of the organizations established by the Charter of the United Nations, that is, the United Nations proper, the specialized agencies provided for in Article 57 of the Charter and a number of programmes established by the General Assembly under its authority derived from Article 22 of the Charter. To this must be added the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which is not a specialized agency in the strict legal sense.") doesn't support your dubious claim. And no, having a seat on the UNCEB isn't the same as being a part of the UN System.
You want more sources? Try: [10] [11]. Have you found any sources that support your theory that the WTO is part of the UN System yet? TDL (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Even these sources you provided mention the "special relationship" or "special status" regarding WTO-UNSystem. UNSystem is not a rigid structure with members, single founding document or whatever. So whether you say "part of", "participates in", "has institutionalized relationship with" or something else may be debatable. And actually being part of the UNCEB (highest decision making organ of the UNSystem) is major part of "belonging to the UNSystem". And as you see in the sources while WTO may lack a single piece of formal negotiated agreement it's still regular full member of UNSystem CEB.
We have the official source "The UN System" where WTO-UNSystem relationship (and WTO's UN System status) is explained - that explanation I propose to use for the footnote (that you admit conveys correctly that part of the source). What we argue about is whether or not we should bother with the WTO at all (e.g. whether to add the "and the World Trade Organization.[Note 1 status explanation]" to the list of organizations after "participate in the United Nations System[2] through membership in...", emphasis mine) - the official UN System source bothers with the WTO, so I don't see any reason for us to deviate from that and avoid it. There is a complexity involved and we can take care of that in the same way as the source - explaining it (in the footnote). Japinderum (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
You can see it also in official United Nations System of Organizations list, List of Agreements between Specialized Agencies and the United Nations, UN System org.charts [12][13][14]. Japinderum (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The column is titled "Membership within the UN System" not "Membership on the UN System CEB". Of course they have a special relationship, that's why they are "related". If they didn't, they would be "unreleated". But as per every source, they aren't formally part of the UN system and hence don't belong. Since you refuse to WP:LISTEN to my responses, there is no sense in me continuing this discussion. However, please don't make this change as there is no consensus for it. It's well past the time to dropped the WP:STICK on this crusade of yours. TDL (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
What every source? I provided you multiple sources showing the WTO is one of the UNSystem organizations. Yes, it's not exactly a specialized agency (there's no negotiated agreement about the WTO-UN relationship) and it doesn't report to the UN, but there are the official exachanges of letters, resolution and decisions establishing the present WTO-UNSystem relationship. Special case, complex status, etc. - that can be easily described in the footnote. Japinderum (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
CMD, what do you mean "is not equivalent"? Of course it's not. I don't say otherwise (if you think I say so, then we should redact the part implying so, but I don't see which is that - anyway, see item3 text). And I don't propose any change in "the list organisation" (yes, I disagree with the arbitrary "default view" UN members+observers split, but that's irrelevant for this discussion of "sorting criteria1 column" footnote). What I propose here is that we add the WTO to the footnote so that concerns expressed in above section are taken care of. Regardless whether we change the explanatory footnote or not the purpose and meaning of the column remains the same - "Membership within the UN system". Japinderum (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Palestine

I found it odd that Palestine was listed among bona fide sovereign states, while others with substantial international recognition or varied autonomy are in the sublist. To point: Palestine has no clear territorial boundaries and does not have effective control over that territory (the reasons for which are not in dispute) -- thus, it does not fulfill two of the fundamental tenets of statehood (yet). So, why is it listed above? Is there even a consensus to have listed it above? While I respect the need to have some criteria for such a list and wish the UN was fully authoritative, this page isn't about UN membership and that aspect seems imbalanced and, so, I have moved the entry down. Alternately, ask the question: is Palestine a sovereign state? Is Taiwan? Swipe aside the personal bias to say yes due to other reasons, and I believe the answer will be no. At least Taiwan has a clear domain (after a fashion) and control over its territory. Ergo ... 64.231.179.54 (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That's simply the criteria that was agreed upon by a large group of editors over many months of extended discussion. With respect, it's not really up to you to overrule that and insert an entirely "new" criteria. Especially with a set of arguments and a criteria that we've already been through many times. The declarative theory is just one of the theories surrounding the definition of statehood, and while it is in use here we also combine it with the constitutive theory, so as to overcome any technicalities and present the list in a rational and easily recognisable form. Palestine's borders are not legally defined, but neither are Israel's. Palestine does, however, have clear boundaries that are recognised in the UN. It does control territory (it doesn't have to control all of it to meet the requirements of that theory). The parts of the archives dealing with this issue are linked to in the archive box at the top of this page under "Discussion of criteria". Those will contain all the information for why this list is sorted this way. I've reverted your change again. If you still disagree with the setup and wish to make a change to it, I suggest you get some form of consensus for it first. Nightw 00:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
64.231.179.54: If you take a look at the archive, there have already been discussions about this issue. The convention for this list has been that UN member states and observer states are listed first. Recognition by the UN is representative of the more rigorous constitutive theory of statehood. After that list, other states are listed under the less rigorous declarative theory of statehood. This has long been the consensus for the list and you haven't stated a compelling reason to change it. – Zntrip 00:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I wonder how salient this consensus is. It seems that there is a lot of blown smoke in a veiled attempt to 'wish' Palestine to be a sovereign state despite other examples. NightW: the two points regarding statehood of Palestine (or lack of) are from its entry in the article itself. Zntrip: you cannot use two distinct theories on statehood for each section, nor place one above the other - nothing exists in isolation. I iterate the comparison to Taiwan, which has more of a claim (on the face of it) than Palestine now does, yet the two territories are placed in different segments. You may revert all you want, but until this is rectified, I will place big old 'bias' tags atop the article. 64.231.179.54 (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Nobody is "wishing" anything. The criteria is explicit, and this is how Palestine currently happens to fall within that criteria. "You may revert all you want, but until this is rectified, I will place big old 'bias' tags atop the article." It doesn't sound as though you understand how this project works, so I think I'm done here. Nightw 01:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Au contraire. Palestine, or any territory, doesn't and shouldn't happen to fall anywhere in a list without some degree of accuracy and certainty. The main problem here -- and it is one of neutrality -- is equating UN membership (of whatever stripe) with statehood. Consensus? I don't see it, nor do I see that this was fleshed out thoroughly for the current case. And, until another editor (or several actually) can compel me to change my perspective -- clearly not you -- then the tags shall remain. Do you really think that this should be the end of it? 64.231.179.54 (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Consensus is indeed established on this point. Palestine's position in this table, and the reasons for it, have been established for a long time, and have not been challenged by any of the large number of editors who have contributed to this page. With respect, whilst a 'lone voice' may of course challenge the status quo of any article on Wikipedia, the talk page is often the best place to start. I am in full agreement with those editors who have reverted your edit, and protected the article, and also with the established criteria for including states on this list. I also find myself in agreement with Nightw in feeling concerned about your use of tagging; the way you talk about tags seems somewhat flippant (apologies if I have misread you) - tags are for flagging up clear article/section issues, and not for expressing POV, or by-passing talk page debate. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 04:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Really - has it? Just until Nov./Dec., Palestine WAS in the latter list, and the UN vote is being used as a justification to classify it elsewhere -- this is a list of sovereign states and others, and a vote to become an observer state does not a sovereign state make. The list places undue primacy on -- and equates statehood with -- UN membership, when there are other criteria and other entities that have perhaps a more substantial claim on that (Taiwan and Kosovo, for example). Can that honestly be said of Palestine presently? Nobody has clearly pointed out precisely where the consensus is on the issue, yet keep iterating it. This archived discussion clearly DOES NOT indicate consensus on the matter, with similar issues being cited here (and I did not even read that beforehand). There are issues with this, and a seemingly groupthink attitude here perpetuates it, with other commentators dancing around the issue. So, the tags are justified and will remain until settled. And how have I bypassed talk page debate when I brought it here for discussion when reverted in the first place? 64.231.179.54 (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The problem here is that you are not advancing an appropriate alternative criteria for inclusion. The list's criteria is not as arbitrary as you make it out to be. It is based on the two prominent theories of statehood in international law: constitutive and declarative. You are challenging these criteria, but you haven't articulated a coherent alternative. Could you perhaps clearly state your proposal in general terms without using the word "Palestine"? – Zntrip 20:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that is solely the problem. Having one section based on constitutive statehood while another is based on declarative statehood is like comparing apples to oranges. And, note that the Montevideo convention -- the hallmark of the latter theory -- is only accepted by some 20 states. So, my issue is not with the other entities with disputed sovereignty, as those seem correctly placed, but with the two observer entries ... one with disputed sovereignty but is sorted as if it wasn't disputed -- Palestine (that is what this section is about). Conversely, the Vatican (actually, the Holy See) is autonomous and has opted to remain an observer. Would we have oddly placed Switzerland a few years ago? A vote to become a UN observer state does not a sovereign state make, with undue emphasis on the juridical nature of UN status (de jure) while giving less importance to the actual (de facto) status. Perhaps it is a matter of sorting and segregating the UN member states from those that are not (including the observers), and/or merging them all together into one list. This is supposed to be a list of sovereign states, not of UN members. On this count, there is a particular appeal to how the former list organized the entities. 64.231.179.54 (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
So what exactly is your proposal? – Zntrip 04:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The 3rd last sentence above sums a couple of options up. 64.231.179.54 (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree. The segregation in the list should be removed. The UN System column already deals with the UN membership of states. Their is no need to keep some states separated at the bottom. Grioghair (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The current section is a compromise from a very long dispute, in which nobody got everything they wanted. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is keen to avoid reopening it. Kahastok talk 18:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
When last I checked, this discussion has not concluded - doubly clear from the above and throughout, with little clear discourse about the topic of this section or the wider issue - and the tags will remain until it is. For those that aren't keen on retackling the subject, move on ... since something is clearly amiss. 64.231.179.54 (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, most of the above is your insistence on keeping these tags and others pointing out why they are not appropriate. I also see a pretty clear consensus against your claim that "something is clearly amiss", against reopening the discussion, and against retaining these tags indefinitely. Kahastok talk 09:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
No, most of the above is others skirting about the issue at hand -- 'Palestine (non-member states) is where it is in the list because that is where it happens to fall' (despite different positioning only a couple months ago) and similar crap. That is not a reason. At least one other commentator believes that something is amiss with how the list is sorted -- and I wonder who else given prior controversy. The tags are a partial response to that brick wall ... and are they inappropriate? No. So, give up discussion on the tags, since they will remain, and get back to the matter at hand or withdraw. If salient discussion about the topic does not come forth, and yours ain't it, I will soon edit the article and equilibrate its content, etc. 64.231.179.54 (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL please. It's not for you to say that the tags "will remain" if there is consensus against them remaining. It doesn't work like that. You don't just get to overrule the ample opposition to change expressed above, and dismissing those points you disagree with as "crap" won't make people more likely to want to reopen this. Threatening to make your edit anyway if people don't agree with you won't help either. Kahastok talk 17:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You've only really iterated 'crap' about tags. And editors need to discuss why something needn't stand, not just because they don't like it. The burden of proof is on those who maintain (flawed) content, not on me to challenge it. Discuss the issue, or be on your way. 64.231.179.54 (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
People, calm down. It is getting too personal. And it is turning more and more into a meta-discussion. On topic: I said that I did not like the separation in the list, but if it is needed to maintain a compromise then I am cool with that. I can only hope that others will begin see the silliness in giving this distinction in two separate ways and that it is also not a completely neutral view. Also the ′UN members PLUS observers′-label seems a bit artificial. But if we need to work with this separation, Palestine is clearly in the right sub list. Grioghair (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The first option you suggest was rejected in the first round of the final RfC -- it was the least-preferred method. The second option was rejected earlier on (during mediation) but then somewhat resurfaced as a plausible option during the final RfC with some editors supporting and some objecting. It's not a good method, in my opinion, and will likely attract even more objection. Have "Abkhazia" at the top of the list, have "Somaliland" right next to "Somalia", have "Nagorno-Karabakh" and "Transnistria", and I guarantee you'll get people like yourself coming along, protesting, slapping some tags on the top and demanding that they be moved back. They'll argue that nobody considers Somaliland/etc a sovereign state, and that it's almost never found in similar lists (and they'd have a point on that bit). Niue is almost never seen in similar lists, except in lists of "countries" where dependent territories are included [15]. The current sort criteria has been used for many, many years. It's only recently that an old entry moved categories. But we're not going to change the whole list's criteria every time an item happens to move against someone's POV. Nightw 09:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the day people will get themselves into a tizzy no matter how the list is sorted. Either you can have one big list and people will go "Well obviously you can't list the FAKE countries alongside the REAL countries." or you can have a list in multiple sections and people will go "Well obviously THIS country doesn't belong in THAT category." My instinct is that a simpler system would be easier to defend and explain than a more complicated one, but really it doesn't matter. There's no one right way to do things, and no way please everyone in a system such as this. C'est la vie. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Further information...

There seems to be a lot of inconsistencies in the Further information column when representing federal subjects, autonomous regions and territories. Each state seems to have their own rules. Some of them are highlighted by a bullet on their own line with, or without a flag. And others are only mentioned in the text. As if the entries that are on their own line are more important. For the Netherlands the countries are emphasized, but not for the UK. For the Netherlands the special municipalities, in the Caribbean, are however only mentioned. But for the UK Guernsey is even further subdivided. Australia does have unpopulated territories emphasized, but most other states (like usa) not. Portugal does not have its autonomous regions highlighted. These are just a few examples. I understand that each state is a unique case in this aspect, but maybe some more consistency should be considered here. Grioghair (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I remember we hashed out some ground-rules for the extents awhile ago, but the entries may have drifted. From what I remember, dependent territories are given their own bullet points, and if they have an official flag different from that of their mother state, that flag is shown. The constituent states (or whatever) in a federation are not named individually, but the total number of such entities is given. Autonomous regions are named, but in prose, not bullet pointed.
The US would seem an exception to our dependencies rule at the moment. The Netherland countries are listed due to their often being viewed as dependencies, not due to the arbitrary title of country. If I remember correctly, the special municipalities were set to remain in a sort of suspended animation till we decide what to do with them, due to (at the time) their creation being recent. It may be time to revisit that. Guernsey does actually have a unique situation where it itself has dependencies of a sort, although I agree we may not have to show them here. Portugal's autonomous regions are mentioned in prose, like all autonomous regions. Are there any other exceptions to the broad guidelines? CMD (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Bosnia-Herzegovina is a federal state with both states bullet pointed. Finland has a autonomous region bullet pointed. As does Pakistan. China mentions even all territorial disputes as a bullet point. Norway does not have its dependencies bullet pointed. And why does the country of the Netherlands have its oficial flag duplicated and dependencies of France do not have the official french flag? Grioghair (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The Aland Islands are a rather unique case, possibly similar to Hong Kong/Macau, hence the bullet. The Netherlands as I mentioned was up in the air due to the changes. Pakistan is done like that due to some specific legal position the Pakistani government takes, that its two Kashmir territories are quasi-states or something of the like, but I agree they could be put in prose. The rest, like some of what you mentioned in your first post, I hope would be uncontroversial to bring into line. CMD (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Subnational entities with their homestates soveriegnty over them limited by international treaty (IE: Hong Kong and Aland) are bulletted. The reason Pakistan's two Kashmiri areas are bulletted is because they actually are not legally part of pakistan. Rather the pakistani government considers them to be foreign states under pakistani administration, in essence akin to dependent territories.XavierGreen (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Israel

"In 1967, Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.", the word occupy isn't the greatest term. It was a seize caused by a war of aggression waged by Anti-Semitic nations during the Six Day War. It should state "In 1967, Israel seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria during the Six Day War.", the reason it should be changed is this. Let's say hypothetically someone is for the first time looking up Israel or just countries in general. He reads how the big bad Israel attacked these nations without looking into it, without a reference to some other reason in the article itself. Now I admit it's a shot in the dark that someone who gets interested in the subject and just goes, "Well I'm not going to look into it, tally ho." but you never know. Also it doesn't count to just tag the year 1967 as the Six Day War, it's like highlighting the Syrian Civil war as 2011 or the War on Terror as 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plzwork1122 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It is the nature of lists that they can only provide summary data - the reader must follow through to relevant articles for detailed background. Your own view is valid, but you will be aware that many others, including many states, see things differently, which is precisely why there are international recognition issues for Israel. A list can only provide a brief overview. Any word may be seen by some as carrying 'baggage' , not least because we all read things differently, but when your forces enter another territory and take possession, the word "occupy" would be seen as appropriate and descriptive by most people. Yes it will always be possible for a "skim reader" to get the wrong idea from this list, or from any list, but that's not our problem - we simply need to make sure we have provided the wikilinks to the fuller sources of information for those who do want to go on and read more background material. Your own choice of words (eg "anti-semitic nations") is heavily charged with WP:POV, whereas the words currently employed in the list are as simple, concise, and neutral as consensus has allowed us to develop.Timothy Titus Talk To TT 18:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This section is tendentious and conflicts with other Wikipedia pages. Egypt never annexed the Gaza Strip (see that page, where Egypt's occupation is correctly so named) and therefore Israel did not "capture it from Egypt". Jordan's annexation of the West Bank was recognised by hardly any states and therefore Israel did not "capture it from Jordan". The section also makes the irrelevant point that Israel captured Sinai from Egypt, without mentioning that is was returned. This is clearly not the place to go into the minutiae of this dispute, but since that is so, the box should refrain from making contentious and partisan statements. The overall view put in this section is one which seeks to wish away the inconvenient truth that all of Palestine was established as a Jewish homeland in 1922, by undisputed international law. Whether or not this is fair or realistic today is not Wikipedia's business to comment on. This site is supposed to be unbiased, not a forum for pushing political views.

Montevideo criteria

This quote from the article "The dominant customary international law standard of statehood is the declarative theory of statehood that defines the state as a person of international law if it "possess[es] the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." Debate exists on the degree to which recognition should be included as a criterion of statehood. The declarative theory of statehood, an example of which can be found in the Montevideo Convention, argues that statehood is purely objective and recognition of a state by other states is irrelevant." seems dubious to me. This convention was only adopted by states in the America's and not by countries outside them. Most of those still believe recognition is a vital criterium. As in practice do most states in the America's.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to change the inclusion criteria

Based on the discussion above, I suggest we change point (a) of the inclusion criteria from:

  • have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory

to

  • consider themselves independent and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory

This is to address the issue that many states never make a formal declaration of independence. As long as the polity considers itself independent, that should be sufficient. Thoughts? TDL (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

In my view, this would be not a motion to change criteria but a motion to clarify criteria. I'll explain myself further in a later post. Ladril (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
As there has been no opposition to this change, I've gone ahead and made it. TDL (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Niue and Cook Islands - July 2013

Niue and the Cook Islands are not sovereign states; they're part of New Zealand. This list is for sovereign states only. Puerto Rico isn't listed as something separate, despite it being a Commonwealth. [Soffredo] 04:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been had before, at great length, with consensus reached. Please read Talk:List of sovereign states/Cook Islands and Niue. Your comments above do not introduce any new evidence, so the current consensus remains. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 08:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Soffredo. They are not being sovereign states, they have not declared independence, and it is main factor to being a state. Yes, they have right to self-determination, but they have not use this right yet. I strongly ask to repeat the discussion about CI/Niue. Yes, previous discussion was very long, but it is not a factor to absolutely agree with the consensus. User02062000 (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Your point of view is entirely valid User02062000, but the question remains the same - do you have some new evidence, not previously discussed? If not, there is little point is repeating a conversation which has already been had at great length here. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 13:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, if my point of view is valid, why did contributors agree to list CI/Niue in that discussion? All Wikipedia pages say that CI/Niue are sovereign but not states! They have not declare independence yet! Please explain! User02062000 (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Your point of view is valid, but it is not the only valid point of view. As you will read in the archives, the point was discussed in detail and at length, and the eventual conclusion was that inclusion is appropriate. The reasons why that conclusion was reached are detailed there. Few of those involved in the dispute are likely to want to repeat that discussion without a new and previously-unconsidered evidence. I do not believe you have yet provided any, but if you have some, please provide it.
I would note as an aside that there are dozens of fully sovereign and independent states that have never declared independence, and that plenty of declarations of independence that have not created states. Kahastok talk 17:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Kahastok has explained it perfectly for you! Having a valid point of view is not the same thing as being correct! You approach this question from one direction, but others approach it from another. This is why Wikipedia depends upon consensus - which has been reached in this case. We keep saying, "if there is new evidence, please produce it". Timothy Titus Talk To TT 18:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The Cook Islands and Niue are states; no source questions that. Their status is considered to be that of sovereign and independent states by the UN Secretary General, several UN specialized agencies and - in both cases - at least one other sovereign nation. As has been previously discussed, the notion that their status is different from "complete independence" implies that they retain a constitutional link with New Zealand, not that they lack sovereignty or statehood. Ladril (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

OK,if CI/Niue are states we must include them in the section "sovereign states" in such lists as List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania. They still standing in the section "dependent territories" in that list and some similar. Explain please! User02062000 (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with you on the need for such a change, but I believe there was unfounded resistance to updating other pages to reflect CI and Niue's status. Ladril (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Why? User02062000 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why. Ladril (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody explain me WHY in the List of sovereign states in the criteria (a) we note that state must declare independence. The criteria (a) is for the declarative theory. But I haven't seen any mention that state must declare independence (when I read the Montevideo Convention). It can be I haven't read all the Convention. Please explain this point to me! User02062000 (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That the criteria say that "the state must have declared independence" should not be taken to mean that it is a prerequisite that a state must sign and proclaim a written declaration of independence. States have come into existence in a myriad of ways. East Timor, for example, had been under UN Administration for several years before effectively becoming a state by enacting a constitution in 2002. Canada and New Zealand, on the other hand, became states by severing their colonial ties with the UK gradually through the course of several decades. Saudi Arabia? It became an independent state in 1932 after a member of the House of Saud triumphed in a decades-long conquest war seeking to unify the peninsula. And there are even oddities that become states by the entering of force of Compacts of Free Association with other states. Bottom line: "independence" can be declared in many ways (including not writing a formal declaration). Ladril (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

But why only criteria (a) of the List of states have this point (must declare independence), not constitutive theory (if constitutive theory will include this point, then CI/Niue would be excluded). And again, point (a) is for declarative theory, but I have not seen such point in Montevideo Convention. Please explain! User02062000 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The rational for that point is that a polity must consider itself to be sovereign to be included. If a polity meets all of the other criteria, but considers itself under the sovereignty of another polity, then it isn't a sovereign state. There has to be a claim of sovereignty to be included. Whether that is by a formal declaration of independence, or by less formal means, is not particularly important.
While CI/Niue might not have formally declared independence, they have made claims of sovereignty. For instance, the CI's constitution states: "There shall be a sovereign Parliament for the Cook Islands, to be called the Parliament of the Cook Islands." TDL (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The Cook Islands' government website declares that "the Cook Islands people, because of their many natural links with New Zealand, have determined to exercise their right of self-government or self-rule or independence -- call it what you will -- but not at this time as a separate, sovereign State." Cook Islands does not consider itself sovereign, and probably neither does Niue. SiBr4 (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Fascinating though this word-play may be, you don't enter into diplomatic relations with other sovereign states, unless you consider yourself to be a sovereign state. Both CI and Niue *have* entered into such relations. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 18:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The quote that SiBr4 linked to is from a document from 1965. A lot has changed in the following 50 years. TDL (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
If the Cook Islands and Niue "have determined to exercise their right of independence" then that means they have that right. Arguing they are not sovereign when they the governments of both states have stated at several points in the past that they consider themselves to be sovereign is off the mark, I think.
The fact that documents from the sixties and seventies state that CI/Niue had chosen a status different from "full independence" at that time does not mean that these states surrendered their sovereignty but rather that they chose to develop it gradually. Not having complete independence should be taken to mean that these states retain a constitutional link with New Zealand. This link, however, is not a qualification on their statehood but rather reflects a relationship the states entered into voluntarily.
The situation is that the term "association" is ambiguous and can mean a lot of different things under international law. It has been applied to describe entities that are universally or almost universally accepted as sovereign states - such as Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau - as well as entities that have no such acceptance whatsoever, such as Puerto Rico. However - and this is crucial- it also always implies a relationship to some other entity (all the aforementioned entities have their status defined by their relationship to the United States). Consequently, whether an association relationship falls on one or another end of the spectrum depends a lot on the specific context and history of each situation. States choose how to judge each case, and the argument here is that the CI and Niue fulfill the list criteria because at least some states have officially proclaimed they recognize them as having the necessary attributes of statehood.
In this line of thought, the "association" of the Cook Islands and Niue with New Zealand is far closer to sovereign state status than to dependency status, to the extent that these states have begun gaining diplomatic recognition as independent from other states. Since the current extent of the list includes states with less international recognition than CI and Niue (such as Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh or Somaliland) it is only natural CI and Niue should be included too.
In the end, if we have an official communique saying that Japan and Cook Islands recognize each other as independent states, how can we claim that Cook Islands does not intend to be one? Ladril (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for explanation, but I repeat my question: where do you find this point about declaration of independence in Montevideo Convention (it is the main source containing declarative theory, so far as I know). Help please if you can! User02062000 (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Montevideo convention is used as a reference that states the central points of one of the theories that in turn gives support to the inclusion criteria. Neither the text of the Convention nor the theoretical propositions of the declarative theory are the sole central tenets of the inclusion criteria. The criteria are the result of a consensus among Wikipedia editors that is based, to the best of our knowledge, on the most relevant, real-world principles used to determine statehood. Ladril (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

But the theories are academic, Wikipedia editors can't use their own principles to determine states, we must go on sources, not our original research! Isn't it? User02062000 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think requiring that states "declare their independence" goes against what academics have said about the subject. I think they would rather agree with the point. If you only stick to the principles of "having territory, population, government and ability to enter into relations with other states" what is keeping academics - or Wikipedia editors - from classing entities such as the Canadian provinces, the Isle of Man or Iraqi Kurdistan as sovereign states? The declaration criterion serves to explicitly draw a line that has always been present in external sources on the subject. Ladril (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!!! And the last question: why does a state mustn't declare its independence in the criteria of the constitutive theory? For example, CI and Niue have never declared its independence, but considered states only because they are considered such by some another countries such as Japan or China? User02062000 (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, referencing what has been said previously in this section: the notion that CI and Niue have not "declared their independence" is erroneous. As proved in the extensive, sourced discussion we had on the subject, these states want their free association status to be recognized as equivalent to independence by other states. That pretty much satisfies the "declaration of independence" criterion. Again, there is no bureaucratic need for a written declaration of independence before being considered a state. You only need to make clear by your actions that you want to be recognized as such. Ladril (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! But I would like to note that many Wikipedians consider CI/Niue to be not fully sovereign states. They don't meet the criteria of the first, declarative point. I had a long discussion with user Chipmunkdavis about UN non-member states. He noted that "if something not a state (haven't declare independence), there will be limited use for applying statehood for them". This user was participating in the CI/Niue long discussion. I agree with Chipmunkdavis, that CI/Niue are included into our list per the constitutive theory (if they will be included per the declarative theory, is is not correct, because they have not declared independence). Yes, they are recognised by some states, but the criteria (a) they meet only as dependency. User02062000 (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me see if I somehow get the point you're trying to make. You are stating that the wording of the section is misleading because the "declaration of independence" requisite is only included in point a) but not point b). I agree with that, but also believe that to be the result of inadequate wording and not really relevant to the decision to include CI and Niue. I don't think the idea the article is trying to convey is that it is possible for a entity to be recognized as sovereign when it has not expressed a desire to be one. Is that what you're trying to argue somehow? If this is your argument, it seems completely off the mark to me.
As to the anecdotal claim that "many Wikipedians consider CI/Niue to be not fully sovereign states" which I think is the really substantial part of your last intervention: what can I say except to point at analyses made by reliable, third-party sources? I grant that the situation of CI/Niue is very sui generis and perhaps difficult for many people to deal with (like many other things that defy strict categorization). My personal stance is that their rather unique status means they deserve a place both on the dependent territory page and on this page, because they are neither completely one or the other. A similar situation perhaps to light, which behaves both as particle and as wave depending on different properties. If "many Wikipedians" insist on classifying it only as one or the other then perhaps we should heed them, despite what reliable sources have to say. Ladril (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of maps and atlases, and almost all (perhaps all) of them put abbreviation (NZ) after CI and Niue. In my discussion with user Chipmunkdavis he said "if we must force things into white and black boxes, then CI/Niue are most often described as dependencies". Also, when I moved CI/Niue from the section "dependent territories" to "sovereign states" in List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania Chipmunkdavis has reverted my edit and explain that "CI/Niue are rarely described as sovereign states, and here we can be more specific". What do you think about these comments? User02062000 (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to keep referring you back to the archived debate, but we *did* discuss maps and atlases in it, and came to the conclusion that the labels you describe could not be taken as evidence of non-sovereignty for these two entities. Also, I'm yet to be convinced that "almost all maps and atlases" use this convention, but even if they did, it would be beside the point, as they are not the only sources on which to base consensus.
As to why CMD could have reverted your edits in that other page, I think my previous responses cover it to some degree. Our consensus view is that CI and Niue can be considered to be sovereign states (and thus listed as such). This does not mean that these two entities will automatically be listed alongside all UN member and observer states (just like the non-UN states with limited recognition are usually placed in separate categories from UN members in Wikipedia pages). Even though they are indeed sovereign, their status is widely to perceived to be sui generis and their recognition as sovereign is less widespread than, say, what is the case for Micronesia, Marshall Islands or Palau. This is why you cannot rush to just list them alongside UN members in every page. UN members are more widely recognized as sovereign entities because of their membership (I'm not so sure about observers, since I would not necessarily put Palestine in the same boat with the Holy See, but this is another topic of debate). The way to incorporate CI and Niue in every page and template has to take this into account. Ladril (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain why are CI/Niue on some pages of Wikipedia considered to be "UN recognized non-member states"? I agree that they have full treaty-making capacity in some UN spezialised agencies, but they are not recognised by the UN organization in General (I have not seen them in section "UN non-member states" on the UN website. We have only one reference for "recognition" of CI/Niue by the UN: map "the World Today" from the UN website. But another UN map doesn't consider CI/Niue to be "non-member non-observer states". I argue that CI/Niue are not recognised by the UN in general and there are only 195 states - members or observers (simply, recognized states) of the UN. What do you think on this topic? User02062000 (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Before I respond, can you point me to pages in Wikipedia that consider these two to be "UN-recognized non-member states"? Also, where is this "UN non-member states" section of the UN website located? Ladril (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Here you are an example of such citation from the page Niue: "The United Nations itself recognises Niue as one of two states in the world (the other one being the Cook Islands) that, as of 2013, are neither member States nor observer States of the UN". Here you are a link to the UN Non-Member States section (as I have said, CI/Niue are not included and then not recognized by the general UN). User02062000 (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The text in the Niue page is inaccurate, for the reasons pointed out here. Leaving this case aside, I believe what I've mentioned about the treatment of Cook Islands and Niue is pretty consistent across Wikipedia pages. Special care seems to have been taken to avoid giving them undue weight. Or is there any other example in Wikipedia we should be made aware of?
As for the UN page, it is not intended as a list of all states in the world that are not members. It is just a list of those nonmember states that have received an invitation to participate as observers in the General Assembly. It does not reflect the views of the UN regarding the de jure sovereignty of all entities that exist as states. Ladril (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

If the text of Niue page as inaccurate me must change it! Don't you think so? And also, does the UN have a list which include all states it recognizes? User02062000 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it should be fixed. I have added it to my queue of things to do. As for the UN having a list of "recognized states". I don't think there is any. Ladril (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Then, which source are we using when say that CI/Niue are recognized/not recognized by the UN? Let me know what is your point of view: CI/Niue are recognized or not by the UN? User02062000 (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I never said CI and Niue are "recognized by the UN". I said that the Office of the UN Secretary General has accepted CI and Niue as sovereign states for the purposes of entering into treaties with other sovereign states. Source here: [16] (scroll down to "Cook Islands" for the relevant part). In the extended discussion we had, consensus emerged to accept this decision as a mark of statehood. Please read the archived discussion under "Cook Islands and Niue" above in its entirety and after you are done, if you have any more questions, I'll be happy to answer them in my talk page (note: when I say "please read it in its entirety first", I mean it). This is already becoming too long for a Cliff's Notes version of the original discussion. Ladril (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll read it through next 1-2 days and ask you if necessary. User02062000 (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


"Too long, didn't read" summary of the above (for future reference). The following are the most common objections to CI/Niue inclusion which continue to pop up time and time again, and their rebuttals based on previous discussion and consensus:
1. "But CI and Niue have never declared independence!" They have declared independence in the sense of making it explicit they want diplomatic recognition as states and participation in multilateral treaties as states. The standing consensus is that these facts fulfill the standards for statehood.
2. "But they do not fulfill the criteria for inclusion!" After straw polling, consensus emerged that they do. They have manifested their desire to be sovereign, have their own government, population and territory, and are fully able to enter into relations with other states.
3. "But they share their head of state and citizenship with New Zealand!" Other states accept them as sovereign despite these features. That's sufficient grounds for inclusion. And no, they are not the only sovereign states in history to have been in a similar situation.
4. "But New Zealand is responsible for some of their foreign affairs and defense!" Under international law, 'responsibility' does not entail a subordinate relationship. Switzerland is to this day responsible for some foreign affairs and defense of Liechtenstein, for example.
5. "But they are not members of the UN!" That's why they cannot just be listed alongside UN members in every page and template.
6. But they do not have 'enough' diplomatic recognition as states!" They have more recognition than other entities that have remained undisputed in the page for years.
7. "But they are not 'recognized' by the UN!" The UN does not recognize states per se. It has influence on the relative position of states by choosing who and who not to accept as member states. This influence is a criterion for sorting the list, not for inclusion.
8. "But some organs of the UN (the Secretary General, many Specialized Agencies) accept them as sovereign states! We know they do. This is part of the reason they are included.
9. "But there is a UN map that shows them as non-member states! That map has a note saying it does not express the official position of the United Nations as a whole. Until something more valid comes up, we cannot accept that map as evidence of "UN recognition" and will continue to rely on other arguments for including CI and Niue in the list.
10. "But I still think the list would reflect the geopolitical situation better if we changed the sorting criteria to X! Whatever your idea is, there is a high probability it was already discussed under "Discussion of criteria" above. Please review that discussion, try to understand the arguments that were put forward against proposals similar to yours, and if you still think yours is the best solution, try to find something to say to support it that has not been argued and dismissed already.

In the future, if anybody wants to further argue these points, please review the entire discussion under Cook Islands and Niue first. Ladril (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure that's entirely accurate in terms of points 1-2. For point 1, My understanding is that we've traditionally interpreted "declaration of independence" to mean literally a declaration of independence - since any other means of attaining statehood is probably going to involve getting recognised anyway. The answer would seem to be that there are many states, including much of Europe, Canada, China, etc., which have never declared independence and that this is not a requirement of statehood.
For point 2, the inclusion criterion deliberately works through either/or. Either they have to "have declared independence and [be] often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory", or they have to be "recognised as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state". If we look at the discussion and particularly the poll, the thrust of the argument was recognition - that both the Cook Islands and Niue were recognised. A declaration of independence was only mentioned in the negative: that the lack of such a declaration meant that the Cook Islands and Niue could not meet the criterion that required one. But that didn't matter because they did meet the criterion on recognition.
It would be more accurate thus to say that consensus found that we could demonstrate diplomatic recognition in both cases, that this - even taken alone - is sufficient to pass the inclusion criteria. Kahastok talk 17:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I think your points are related to the proposal to change (or rather, clarify) inclusion criteria below, so it would be a good idea to continue the discussion there. Ladril (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll respond here for the time being. But let's see if we can discuss one point at a time, reach consensus, and then move on to the next.
As for point 1, I certainly understand the reasons behind your interpretation of the "declaration of independence" criterion. Making a declaration of independence has been a clear way for many states to make their intention to be recognized as sovereign explicit. Historically, it has also served as a way for editors to prevent people from adding non-sovereign (or yet to be sovereign) entities to the list. I certainly get that the "declaration of independence" requirement is a good one, especially if we want to prevent every separatist government with some control over territory to be automatically included as a sovereign state. But given that, shouldn't we make the list criteria more flexible to account for the fact that some entities may achieve statehood by means different than a formal declaration? If, as you say, states have come into being as a result of processes different from a declaration as recently as the Twentieth Century (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and maybe some other Dominions as well), why should not we account for similar situations now? Ladril (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


Thank you very much!!! I think it is the best explanation of CI/Niue including! These arguments are excellent evidence of CI/Niue status! Thanks! User02062000 (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@Ladril - I stumbled across this discussion. I think you are a topper. Your explanations are superb. You put a lot of time in to providing detailed, concise and reasoned responses. I suspect you are a lawyer. Separately, re your piece that CI/N "are not the only sovereign states in history to have been in a similar situation." What jumps out at me here would be countries like Canada during the period when their citizens were all "British subjects" etc. Are there any other examples? Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
1. Thanks!
2. I'm not a lawyer.
3. Other examples: I recall reading that some countries (mostly African) that formed part of the French Union (later French Community) had no separate citizenship while being separate states according to international law. Ladril (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh well, whatever you are I still think you are a topper.
Thanks for the French Union example; I haven't become an expert on it yet but certainly it's comparable with CI/N. For example, Laos established diplomatic relations with the U.S. in 1950 at a point in time when no one apparently regarded it as fully sovereign. By the time Laos joined the U.N., it was still in the French Union but by then styled as sovereign; though I suspect some were sniffy about it. Any way, this is all by the way. Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Vatican City and Holy See question

We list Vatican City as a sovereign state on the list. But in the UN list there is mentioned that Holy See is a permanent observer state. Explain why we consider Vatican City to be a state but not Holy See which is considered state by the UN? User02062000 (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

There are not two countries. Vatican City is the state established in civil law in 1929. Holy See is an episcopal see of the Roman Catholic Church. KTC (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It is very common for the two terms to be used interchangeably - by the media, by individuals, and even by governmental organisations - but there IS a distinct difference, as outlined above by KTC. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 20:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, but why Holy See is in the section "Permanent Observer states" in the UN website? If Holy See is not a state as you say, it must be in the section "observer entities" in the UN list! Somebody answer please! User02062000 (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the United Nations Terminology Bulletin on Country Names, In United Nations documents the term "the Holy See", not "Vatican City State", is to be used, except in texts concerning the International Telecommunication Union and the Universal Postal Union, where the term "Vatican City State" is to be used, as it is the accepted designation of these two specialized agencies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

But why UN uses Holy See name but not Vatican City State which is the state? Please answer! User02062000 (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It's mainly just convention. The Holy See is the organisation which holds the sovereignty, and the Vatican is the territory which it was granted in the Lateran Treaty. The Holy See is the sovereign (not the Vatican), hence why it is the member of the UN. Confusingly, the Vatican is referred to as a state, but it is not a sovereign state. In effect, the Holy See and Vatican in combination form a Sovereign State, which the Holy See, as sovereign, represents in the UN. You're correct that the Holy See is not really a state: but that's just the way that it's the phrased. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If Vatican City is not sovereign state as you say, why are we including Vatican into the List of sovereign states? User02062000 (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The above is my interpretation based on a bit of reading around of the legal status of the Vatican in response to your question about why the UN uses the name Holy See. In practice, and as far as anyone needs to care, the Vatican City is a sovereign state. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks SuperNintendo but I think in the end you were not able to answer this question. "The Holy See is the sovereign (not the Vatican), hence why it is the member of the UN." We are talking here about "sovereign states", not "sovereigns". Queen Elizabeth is often called "the sovereign". User02062000 wants to know about this, and so do I but I have been too lazy to read up so far. "as anyone needs to care"...we care, this is Wikipedia where we love this sort of stuff. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't try to over-think this, Frenchmalawi. The original question has been answered above. You are correct that "sovereign" is a word used in English for the ruling monarch of a country, as that nation's sovereignty is vested in its monarch. The Sovereign of the Vatican/Holy See is the Pope, as the sovereignty is vested in him, as the ex officio head of the Sovereign entity, the Holy See (because the Holy See is a diocese of the Church, and the head of any diocese is its bishop, and the Pope is the Bishop of Rome). Perhaps it would help to think of another Sovereign entity, but one that has no land - such as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM). This Order is regarded as Sovereign by a majority of the world's nations, even though it has no territory of its own. Now imagine that it were to be given, for argument's sake, the Isle of Wight. The SMOM would still be the Sovereign body, and it's Grand Master would still be the Sovereign, but the Isle of Wight would be its territory. The "nation" of SMOM would be an unusual fusion of a sovereign entity (SMOM) and a territorial place (the Isle of Wight). Now, admittedly, this example is very unlikely ever to happen (!), but it IS what happened at the Vatican. The Holy See was a widely recognised and acknowledged Sovereign entity, and under the terms of the Lateran Treaty in 1929 it was granted territory in Rome, known as the Vatican City State. (In fact the Holy See already owned this territory, but simply as any body owning property within Italy; under the Treaty, the Vatican ceased to be Italian soil, and became the Vatican City State). The Holy See remains the sovereign body, but the Vatican City State is its territory, and the two together effectively form the world's smallest nation. I hope the 'silly' example above may help you to understand the actual situation at the Vatican. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 10:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I do appreciate your efforts; but none of the above was news to me or added anything from my perspective. Put broadly, under UK law, "Parliament" is the sovereign power. Under the laws of Ireland, sovereign power rests in the "people". No one here is suggesting that the UK or Ireland are not sovereign states, unworthy of inclusion on the list. No one has suggested that "Parliament", or "the people" or analogous terms be added to the list, in lieu of the UK and Ireland respectively. We know these states have their own respective theories on who has sovereignty. It seems that for the Vatican City State, its position is that sovereignty rests in the Holy See. So, does that make the Vatican City State any less a sovereign state than Ireland or the UK? I expect there are explanations out there but I don't think yours quite cuts it. Frenchmalawi (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that your search for a definitive answer is based upon the belief that international law follows a set of consistent rules. In practice, it doesn't: it is much more based on contingency and convention (as the Wikipedia article has it, it is " consent-based governance"). In the UK, under common law, we can take precedent set in one case and apply this to others. In international law, we can't do that. In other words, the relationship between the sovereign and sovereignty in different states cannot be taken to tell us anything about the same relationship in other states. The comparison to the UK/Ireland is therefore not applicable. So, to take, the UK: the sovereign is "The Crown in Parliament". The Crown-in-Parliament effectively 'holds' sovereignty on behalf of the monarchy and the people (hence the merger of the two). In states such where the sovereign is 'the people' (or something similar), sovereignty is conferred from the people to the state, through the process of democracy. The Holy See simply differs again. There is no (particularly) good reason for this: it is convention. There is no answer that will satisfy any desire to fit the Holy See/Vatican relationship into a set of criteria, other than one designed specifically to include it. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
This article attmepts to set out the distinction. A nice quote on the issue is:
It is argued in this Note that treating the Holy See as distinct from the Vatican City State does not infringe on the Department of State’s authority and, in any case, the Department of State has already implicitly classified the Holy See and the Vatican City State separately, representing the Vatican City State as a “sovereign, independent territory,” and representing the Holy See as “a sovereign juridical entity under international law" In this article, the author reckons that the Holy See is the entity to which the Vatican has transferred some of its sovereign powers, namely those involving international relations. Again, though, that is just an interpretation. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Super Nintendo, thanks for bringing that article to our attention. I note it says things like:

  • “This Note... contends that the separate functions of the Holy See and Vatican City State allow the Vatican City State to maintain the requirements of a state with the Holy See acting as an instrumentality towards it.”
  • ”The Department of State has already implicitly classified the Holy See and the Vatican City State separately, representing the Vatican City State as a “sovereign, independent territory”.”
  • ”If it is found that the foreign relations of a state can be “outsourced” to either other states or international organizations, there would be no reason to hold that the Holy See must actually be a state itself.”
  • ”It would seem that, though abnormal, it would a perfectly acceptable concept in both international and U.S. law that the Holy See and the Vatican City State be seen as two distinct entities, one an instrumentality and the other a state.”
  • ”While it may be that the Department of State currently classifies the Holy See as a foreign sovereign, there is no evidence that such a determination has been anything but political in nature.”

Your first response above, wasn’t very helpful. It seemed to ignore entirely the points I made. In contrast the article you drew attention to really did try to address them. The thrust of the article is that U.S. law doesn’t accept a concept of “sui generis” sovereignty and there is no reason why a logical approach to classifying the Holy See shouldn’t be taken too. It’s thrust is that the Holy See is not a sovereign state, while the Vatican City State is. Following the approach of the author, our list would omit Holy See (just as it omits another “agent of instrumentality”, the European Union). Of course it is only the views of the author. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The United Nations has recently updated its "The World Today" map

You can see it here. As you see, Niue and the Cook Islands are the only two recognized non-member states of the UN. The State of Palestine is also marked under this, but I'll assume it's a mistake since it should be gold like Vatican City. Should Niue and the Cook Islands be given a green "Recognized non-member" status, as I suggested earlier? [Soffredo] 02:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No substantive part of the objections that were raised against this proposal six weeks ago have changed. That the map might have been updated is entirely irrelevant, particularly given that it still says:

The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or any area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Your category of "recognized non-member states of the UN" remains nothing more than your own original research.
Note: once this closes, I suggest we move both this and the discussion above to Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria/Archive 8. Kahastok talk 11:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
This map was used as proof that Niue and the Cook Islands were sovereign states in the archives. [Soffredo] 13:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I have moved your post below mine to make the conversation easier to follow.
That a flawed argument may have been used in the past does not make it any less flawed today. I note for the record that the map in question was not a persuasive factor in the decision that led to the inclusion of the Cook Islands and Niue. The persuasive factor in that discussion was the evidence of explicit diplomatic recognition by outside states.
And I repeat, there is nothing substantive in the map as it was today that makes it any more persuasive than it was six weeks ago. All the arguments used then still apply. Kahastok talk 14:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
While the map retains this disclaimer, we really can't use it for the purpose which has been disclaimed! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Bangsamoro Republik

Bangsamoro Republik is a breakaway state from the Philippines and claims independence. Any confirmation on whether they control any actual territory so it could be added to this list? I cannot find anything. —SPESH531Other 21:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone wrote that it is a de facto state. Any evidence to back this up? [Soffredo] 01:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, reuters confirmed today that they controlled several villages in the area they claim. [[17]] Its likely they control other areas as well on Basilan and Mindano, but i haven't been able to find any source confirming beyond the ones near Zamborga.XavierGreen (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I've never heard of them controlling anywhere until these recent clashes. Here's the list of villages that they claim to be holding now: [18]. Since fighting is still ongoing [19] and this only started a day or two ago, my strategy would be to wait for the direction of events to become clear before adding Bangsamoro to our lists of states. GeoEvan (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I've removed this for now, using the 'hidden text' feature rather than removing the state. I think that at the moment the evidence is far from clear that Bangsamoro "controls a permanently populated territory". Control here means more than 'hold during a period of war': it means to administer, run and organise a territory. Potentially if the war becomes elongated and the Moro National Liberation Front takes permanent control of an area, or if a ceasefire results in them controlling a territory then we can add them, but at the moment it's by no means clear that this is anything other than territory being held in a war. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
PS I wonder that if there is a move towards reinstating this, whether there is benefit of adding it in third temporary category separate from the rest of the list eg 'a declared state which controls land in state of warfare' or some such? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Unrecognized states by their very nature hold territory during conflict, for example the territory controlled by Somaliland is constantly in a state of flux because of warfare with Puntland and Khatumo State. Control is control, while it might be argued that Bangsamoro no longer controls any territory at all, it clearly met the criteria for the list when i added it. There is nothing concerning a "state of warfare" in the declartive theory of statehood. For example Azawad was added to the list, yet it was experencing "warfare" with Mali during the entirety of its existance.XavierGreen (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

We've had several of these apparently-transient "states" appearing and disappearing recently, and it concerns me that we end up with a list that fails the principle of least astonishment.

I note that we have precedent for leaving out supposed states during the transient phase of a conflict, in that the two competing governments of Libya were never listed, despite being (at least by appearance) a close match in theory to the two Chinas.

I find this case different to Somaliland in the same way as Libya was different to China. The Somaliland situation is well-established and well-documented. For all we know, the Bangsamoro situation could be over in a couple of weeks, and may never become well-established or well-documented.

List of states with limited recognition has a list of explicitly excluded categories - such as uncontacted peoples and micronations. Among them is:

Those areas undergoing current civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession, regardless of temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria (by having control over permanently populated territory or by receiving recognition as state or legitimate government), where the conflict is still in its active phase, the situation is too rapidly changing and no relatively stable rump states have emerged yet.

I believe that we should probably have such a list and include that point. Kahastok talk 19:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd support this. I wasn't aware that Azwad had been on the page either, and I also wouldn't support it's inclusion. I'd agree that we shouldn't remove states that are at war - many limited recognition states are permanently at war with the state that they have broken from - we also need to distinguish between 'holding' and 'controlling' territory. While there's no mention of 'state of war' in declarative state theory - I never claimed that there was - the word 'control' does not simply mean 'to hold possession of'. It refers to the ability and practice of occupying, administering and running a territory. For example,this document produced by a Judge in Turkey, and this geopolitical source, use the more informative phrase 'effective control' to refer to the requirements of statehood. This was my objection to the inclusion of Bangsamoro, and is the broader strengthening of criteria that I feel is required here. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I see that Bangsamoro is also on the List of states with limited recognition despite that caveat. I have linked to this discussion from there. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The criteria you question mentioning civil war deals with issues arising soley from questions revolving around the succession of states, it has nothing to do with break away sepratist states. The Bangsamoro Republik does not claim to be the Philippines, it claims to be independent apart from the philippines unlik ethe situtation involving libya where the Transitional National Council claimed to be Libya as did the Qaddafi regime. There is no difference between holding and controlling territory, if your not holding a piece of territory your not controlling and if your not controlling a piece of territory your not holding it.XavierGreen (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing in the criteria detailing that, though. There is a significant difference between holding a territory in war, and controlling it as a state. There is no evidence that the Bangsamoro Republik has any administrative control over territory; that it controls a population; that it has any capacity to engage in relations with other states. Being war at does not prevent this. Being a newly declared republic fighting for its territory does. Maybe in 6 months it will be suitable to add it. At this time, there are no sources which tell us this. All we have a news stories saying that a rebel state controls 7 villages as part of a conflict. This does not equate to sovereign statehood. Declaritive theory requires: " 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states." (from Wikipedia). There is no evidence for this in Bangsamoro.
Finally, a note on your conduct Xavier - three editors over multiple pages have removed your inclusion of Bangsamoro. You have reverted each one. Thankfully none of us have had any interest in an edit war, but you might reflect that the actions of others indicates no consensus for inclusion. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that Azawad was added to the page, despite its ephemeral existence, because there was a significant amount of third party sources describing it as a breakaway state at that time. This is probably what made it easier for people to see its addition as non-forced. In the case of Bangsamoro, I've been unable to find sources that describe it as a state in those same terms. This may be what is raising eyebrows among other editors. Ladril (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Azawad case, but the central point remains that if the bar for including a sovereign state is a declaration of independence and a claim that an area is 'controlled' by a news agency, then we are setting the bar way too low. In fact, the more I read the criteria here, the more I think that Bangsamoro doesn't match them. It is not "often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory." Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I actually think Xavier might be right in that, in the current circumstances, a case might be made for inclusion based on a strict reading of the criteria. Bottom line is, I don't think the discussion has to do that much with the criteria themselves, but on how conservative people are willing to be regarding the addition of new entries. Experience has shown that there are some users who are eager to add in everything that may be claimed to fit the criteria as soon as something develops that seems to bolster it, while the majority seem to prefer caution. Ladril (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The criteria is quite clear, the page list of states with limited recognition does state "civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession". It is clear that the reason a government would not be included during a civil war is because of a government succession dispute. In the case of a breakaway state there is no government succession dispute, the breakaway state is not claiming to be its mother country it is claiming to be a separate state. As for the criteria, reuters is considered a reliable source by wikipedia, and reuters stated that Bangsamoro controlled 7 villages. In regards to government, the Bangsamoro page has sources showing that the state has a president and a constitution (a government), as for a permanant population the villages under the control of Bangsamoro have been populated for decades if not centuries, and for capacity to enter relations with other states the MNLF is a member of the OIC which itself should show that it has the capacity to enter relations with other states, the president of the republik Misuari has lobbied for support from the OIC on behalf of the republik [[20]]. It clearly meets the criteria set forth on both this page and the limited recognition states page. The criteria under the declarative theory are not hard to meet, a well organized militant band of a hundred or so gunman can easily take over a populated place, declare independence, and meet the criteria for example Republic of Western Bosnia.XavierGreen (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
It may be that Bangsamoro Republik meets the letter of the criteria, and it might be that the letter of the rule at List of sovereign states List of states with limited recognition does not bar Bangsamoro Republik.
My question is, should it meet the rule. In my view, in the absence of reliable sources referring to an entity as a state or breakaway state, during the initial or active phase of a rebellion in which there is little stability, we should not be listing an entity pending clarity of the position - regardless of the aim of the rebellion. If this is not strictly within the stated exceptions, the stated exceptions should be changed. If the claimed state disappears within weeks, it never goes on the list. If the situation stabilises, it can go in at that time.
I believe that there is policy backing for this: WP:NOR would suggest that we should not be assessing the criteria for statehood ourselves, but that we should be waiting for reliable sources to do it. We shouldn't in principle, be listing any entity before any reliable source does. Kahastok talk 17:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Likewise, WP:NOR would suggest that we should not be adding arbitrary exceptions to the criteria, and assessing exceptions those ourselves, just so we can get the answer we want.
The underlying problem is that in spite what some have argued above, it's rarely "clear" whether a state meets the criteria because it is defined so vaguely. There are really only two solutions to this:
a) Only include states which are explicitly described as "sovereign states" by RS
b) Chose an unambiguous criteria which would not require OR to asses. I've argued in the past that we should restrict this list to states which are diplomatically recognized by at least one other state for just this reason. This may not be a perfect solution, but it is objective and unambiguous and would eliminate the endless OR debates on the talk pages. The shortcomings of any criteria we choose can be discussed in the article. TDL (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The declarative theory of statehood is well sourced, quite clear, and objective. The constitutive theory is quite biased towards a UN point of view, many states are extremely hesitant to recognize a state that is not a member of the UN as the Kosovo issue has shown. I think the status quo is fine, you can have the similar problems with the constitutive theory as the declarative theory. For example what actually constitutes recognition? A diplomatic note? A treaty? A meeting between two representatives of the nations in question? An isolationist state can conceivably not want or seek recognition yet still clearly be a state and defend its independence fiercely. I think (as a political scientist) that the criteria are quite clear and rather that the problem is that a layman might not understand some of the terms used for example "government succession" but that same problem occurs with any specialized area of study. No matter what the criteria are, people will continuously be adding and removing states from the list because because their very nature states are born and die throughout time.XavierGreen (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not the criteria is well sourced is irrelevant. The issue is whether the fact that a state meets the criteria is sourced. Can you produce a source that says "Bangsamoro meets the declarative theory of statehood"? If you can't, then making that argument is OR interpretation of sources and the criteria.
"The declarative theory of statehood is ... quite clear, and objective" - No it isn't. There is lots of literature on the subject, which given that you claim to be a political scientist you should really be aware of. See for example [21] which refutes many of your arguments:
  • "Control is control" - "institutionalized political, administrative and executive organizationl machinery must actually exercise state authority over the claimed territory and the people residing the that territory. In other words, there must be an entity or organ capable of establishing and maintaining a legal order through the territory of the prospective state." Do you really think Bangsamoro ever satisfied this? It seems the "laymen" are correct and the "political scientist" wrong on this issue.
  • For a comparable example on Finland when they broke away from Russia: "In the midst of revolution and anarchy, certain elements esential to the existence of a State, even some elements of fact, were lacking for a fairly considerable period." Effective control is required both in cases of succession AND seccession.
"For example what actually constitutes recognition?" - The answer to this one is simple. A state has been recognized if RS say it has been recognized. No need for complex assessments of situations where we don't have all the facts. The whole point is that WE shouldn't be the ones who make these conclusions, it needs to be done by reliable sources.
As I said, the constitutive theory has its flaws, but at least it is unambiguous and objective. If the claim that it is biased towards a UN POV can be sourced, then this is something that would be important to mention in the article. This isn't a debate over which criteria is better. The point is that it is better to use an unambiguous and objective criteria and explain its flaws rather than an unambiguous criteria which a handful of editors perform OR with to come to conclusions unsupported by sources.
Show me a RS that Bangsamoro is a sovereign state and I'd support their inclusion. Otherwise, your personal analysis of the situation isn't admissible to the encyclopedia. TDL (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
TDL, your differentiation of military control vs administrative control makes sense, however restricting the list to countries recognised by others would be a bad idea, as it would contradict the many sources that discuss those states without recognition. Azawad as noted above had a large number of sources discussing its existence as a state. Even without Azawad, restricting to recognition would leave out Somaliland, and possibly Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh, all three of which have in the past couple of decades become firmly established examples of breakaway states. I'd rather the occasional flash-in-the-pan rebel group added than removing 3 long-standing and well-sourced states. CMD (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
<reduced indent> I like at the moment that the page attempts to toe the line between constitutive and declarative state theory, and agree with CMD that I wouldn't want to change this. In this (and other instances) however, I think the key point that was made much more eloquently by TDL than I was able to is that control requires some level of administration, of civilian government which at least has aims to be permanent. Bangsamoro may have this is in a number of weeks; it may never have it. I also note the absence of any sources which state that Bangsamoro is a state with control over territory. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, but a state does not need to have a civilian government to be a state. The military and the state can be one in the same, for example Burma during the Junta. It is quite clear that the MNLF is one in the same as the Bangsamoro Republik. The MNLF is in essense the government of the state. I provided a reuters source before that stated that the MNLF had seized control over territory on behalf of the Bangsamoro Republik that had declared independence.

As for the constitutive theory being objective, i already gave the Kosovo example above as proof that it is not. States today rarely recognize another that is not a part of the UN, yet one can clearly have a state that isolationist and makes no attempts at gaining recognition or even doesn't care whether or not it is recognized (think of Japan in the shogunal era). You can further look into the Kosovo situation for example of when recognition is disputed, some governments such as São Tomé and Príncipe don't even know what constitutes a valid recognition by their own government.XavierGreen (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but by the logic of the addition of Bangsamoro Republik being a state is is unfathomable. Is the Irish Republic a state?

It was declared in 1916, comprises the entire island has had a form of military, and political governence of sorts (even paying pensions), it is in a soverniegnity dispute with the Irish and British governments and continues to claim juristriction. No its not. Because no one sees it as a legitimate form of state. And neither is the Bangsamoro Republik until we can class it through RS and international recognition. Murry1975 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The Irish Republic no longer exists, it was subsumed into the Irish Free State in 1922.XavierGreen (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Not according to those who opposed the treaty nor by those who continue armed struggle in its name, so it does exist by your previous logic. And by the logic you are stating now the Bangsamoro Republik cant exist because it hasnt seceeded from Malaysia or the Philippines. You cant have it both ways XavierGreen. Murry1975 (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Xavier, you either aren't reading or aren't understanding what I've said. Whether or not the constitutive theory is an good measure of what is and what is not a state is an entirely valid debate. In fact I agree with you that the declarative theory is "better" in that it is not politicized. However, that isn't what we are discussing. What we are discussing is how do we tell if a state satisfies the criteria? If I ask you whether a state meets the constitutive declarative criteria, you'd need to write an entire research paper just to answer that question because the criteria is so complicated, and depending on how they are interpreted can lead to different answeres. That is the very definition of OR. If I ask you whether a state satisfies the declarative constitutive theory of statehood, then the answer is simple, just ask other states if they recognize.
I don't disagree with the concerns above about only using declarative constitutive. I was just trying to point out that we have a choice between using a simple criteria that can be evaluated by us without performing OR (but which will likely get the "wrong" answer occasionally) or a complicated criteria which will need to be evaluated by RS. If the choice is the latter, then the WP:BURDEN is on those who wish to add a state to provide sources that explicitly say "Bangsamoro is a sovereign state because it controls territory". Collecting a bunch of sources and interpreting them to draw non-trivial conclusions is OR. TDL (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
FWIW I would suggest that if we continue with the declarative theory (and I think you've got them the wrong way around in the above), we ought to require a reliable source confirming the point.
That said, it occurs to me that we already do. The declarative theory inclusion criterion is (emphasis mine):
Seems to me that the principle that we require sources before making these claims could be made clearer, but it is already there. Kahastok talk 19:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Oops, my bad on the typo. I agree that in theory the criteria requires verification by reliable source, however in practice that never seems to be how things work on this article.
The other point is that the criteria only requires that sources confirm they "have control over a permanently populated territory". However, as Super Nintendo ChalmYou keep ers argued above, a bunch of armed rebels may "control" territory, but not have "effective control" which is what is required for sovereignty. We could try to clarify the criteria by changing it to "effective control", "administrative control" or "sovereign control" to emphasize this point, but perhaps the best idea is to just get rid of the description of the criteria all together, and say something like
That way it would be clear that there needs to be sources which says exactly that, rather than one source that supports one part of the criteria, another source that supports another, and then WP:SYNTHESISing it all together to conclude that they are sovereign. (The specific points of the criteria are already described elsewhere in the article.) TDL (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I would support such a change. Kahastok talk 08:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
This page contains links to some sources on the case: [22]. I think evidence is leaning more towards non-inclusion of Bangsamoro at this time. Ladril (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Control by a Military force is about as effective as one can get. Whats more effective than people using weapons to enforce their authority? As for sources the Reuters source i provided stated that the state had declared independence and controlled territory. Wikipedia does not require a source to be a published scholarly paper in a journal to be considered reliable, a news report from a wire like reuters certaintly is considered reliable. There was no synthesis.XavierGreen (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Sigh...if you aren't going to read the discussion, or can't understand it, then there really is much point in continuing to debate this around and around in circles.
"Control by a Military force is about as effective as one can get." - Repeating this ad nauseam does not make it true. As I quoted above: "In other words, there must be an entity or organ capable of establishing and maintaining a legal order through the territory of the prospective state." A handful of gunmen running around cannot maintain legal order.
Reuters is reliable, but Reuters doesn't say Bangsamoro is a sovereign state. Only you have said that. You drew that conclusion from the source. That is by definition OR. Show me a source that says Bangsamoro is a sovereign state. Otherwise you're making it up.
Since there seems to be a pretty clear consensus not to add Bangsamoro at this time, and no sources describing them as sovereign have been produced, I'm going to go ahead and revert your addition of Bangsamoro. Please don't restore it unless there is a consensus on the talk page. TDL (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I have read the discussion, and i do understand it. A handful of gunman can maintain order. How do you think order is maintained throughout all of the states listed here, with gunman called police and military. The very essence of the state is its monopoly of force over the people. Max Weber argued that a polity is a state where its "administrative staff successfully uphold a claim on the 'monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force'" Gunmen, militia, military, police, ect are what provides a state with its very existence. The "entity or organ capable of establishing and maintaining a legal order through the territory of the prospective state" in the matter of Bangsamoro are the MNLA "gunmen" holding the villages. What legal order is in the villages is whatever they decide it to be, because they have (or had up until recently) effective control over them. And while the MNLA might not have "effective control" over any districts right now, they certaintly did when i added them and for several days afterword.XavierGreen (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Xavier, the problem, as illustrated in my link above, is that at this time it is not clear that the rebels who have taken control of the villages are the same faction that declared the Bangsamoro Republic some time ago. The rebels who declared the Republic have denied having endorsed the attacks and have distanced themselves from it. It is then not possible to establish that a state has been formed. Ladril (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
It is clear that it is the same faction and they no longer deny that they are in command of the faction engaged in the fighting, the main spokesman for the MNLF has been speaking on behalf of the MNLF unit involved in the fighting and has issued demands for the government to meet for the fighting to cease. [[23]] [[24]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierGreen (talk • contribs)
I really don't see how any reasonable person could describe the situation in the territory occupied by the MNLF gunmen as "legal order". Chaos, anarchy, guerrilla warfare or civil war is not "legal order". Having the biggest guns doesn't mean you have effective control. Did the MNLF ever "successfully uphold a claim on the 'monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force'"? Did authorities from the Philippines ever try to exert physical force in the claimed territories only to be rebuffed? If not, then there is no way to conclude that they had a monopoly on force.
Also, for further explanation of effective government see: "A state need not possess any particular type of government, but its government must provide some degree of internal stability and should enjoy “the habitual obedience of the bulk of the population (Lauterpacht 1947, 28).” An effective government provides its citizens and residents with remedies and carries out duties vis—a-vis other states (Lauterpacht 1947)." Did the "government of Bangsamoro provide "internal stability"? Do the "citizens" of Bangsamoro habitually obey the "government" of Bangsamoro? Which remedies does the government of Bangsamoro provide to its "citizens"? If the answer is "no" or "none" to any of these questions then there was no effective government and no effective control. TDL (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
<reduce indent> I have little more to add to the debates above. I agree that the sources should support the claim that a location is a state. I also agree that the control - in the context of statehood - requires some level of attempted or claimed government. I also think that it is clear that there is no consensus for including Bangsamoro and as such it should be removed, possibly with further editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries asked for their perspectives. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that under the current criteria, Bangsamoro Republik probably technically qualifies for the list. "Control" means different things to different people - there's no one "correct" definition, and holding the powers and government of a state out of an area using military force is not an unusual meaning of the word "control" (not that the word "control" is also used by many reliable secondary sources in the case of the Zamboanga standoff).

HOWEVER, I agree that a change in the criteria may be in order, though not in regards to the issue of warfare. A "state" should probably have some kind administrative structure in place, which the rebels from the MNLF faction in Zamboanga don't seem to have. However, some other claimed states might have a robust administrative mechanism despite being in a state of war, and I think that should be enough for them to qualify.

Azawad might have been a difficult call. The MNLA did at least establish some governmental mechanisms, and their control was stable enough that they had time to do more than just shoot the army and hold hostages like the rebels in Zamboanga have done.

GeoEvan (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The argument is rather moot at this point, the MNLF no longer control any territory openly anywhere and the Bangsamoro Republic has been debellated. But i still think it met the criteria when it did exist defacto, at least for the first few days of the conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Declarative theory of statehood

I doubt if this is the dominant standard as stated in the article. The Montevideo Convention in which this standard was put forward has only sixteen signatories. All from the America's. In practice most countries use the constitutive theory of statehood in which they either recognise a country or withhold recognition. I suppose even the Montevideo signatories recognise countries and withhold recognition from other countries. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

While only a few states are party to the Convention, the general principals are considered to be part of customary international law (ie [25]). And while I agree that most states view recognition as a political decision, rather than one following from facts on the ground, the article should reflect how independent WP:RS (ie academic sources) define states, rather than WP:PRIMARY sources such as fellow states. TDL (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Add the Syrian National Council to this list

I believe that the Syrian National Council (SNC) should be added to the list. If it was, here is what part of the list would look like:

Short and formal names Membership within the UN System [Note 1] Sovereignty dispute [Note 2] Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty [Note 4]
A AAA A AAA A AAA
ZZZ↓ UN member states or observer states ↓ A AAA ZZZ
 Syria – Syrian Arab Republic A UN member state Disputed with the Syrian National Council Israel occupies the Golan Heights.[2]
Syrian National Council → Syrian National Council A UN member state A None
ZZZ↑ UN member states and observer states ↑ A ZZZ ZZZ
ZZZ AB B
ZZZ↓ Other states ↓ D AAA ZZZ
Syrian opposition Syria – Syrian National Council D No membership Claimed by Syria Recognized by 8 UN member states and Kosovo. Syrian National Council claims to be the legitimate authority of Syria. It is currently suspended from the Arab League.
ZZZ↑ Other states ↑ D ZZZ ZZZ
ZZZZ ZZZZ ZZZZ

Thoughts? Does the SNC fit the criteria? [Soffredo] Journeyman Editor 19:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it. So far as I can see there was a much clearer case for the Libyan rebels during the war there (at least in their case we could point to effective authority in Benghazi), and we never included them separately from Gaddhafi.
I suggest that if you want to add entities to the list, you need to be able to justify them by the criteria for inclusion. You do not appear to have attempted to do so here. (And to pre-empt the obvious, allow me to point out that to pass the recognition point the Syrian National Council would have to be recognised as a sovereign state in their own right, as opposed to as government of an already-listed sovereign state.) Kahastok talk 22:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Kahastok. Unless there are sources which support the claim that they have been recognized as a "sovereign state" they shouldn't be added. I do think that it would be a good idea to add the details on the SNC to Syria's entry though. TDL (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It's an alternative government for the same state. Shouldn't be included. Hellerick (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What Hellerick & Danlaycock wrote. They are not claiming to be a seperate state, they are claiming to be the legitimate government of an existing state that's already included. -- KTC (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
It should not be included. The Syrian National Council did not proclaim a new state. --maxval (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with maxval. This is not about a new sovereign state. Just about a group claiming to be the government of one. Even if that group is acknowledged by some governments as being the government of Syria, no new state has been declared and no new one has been recognized. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference unms was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference golanocc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).


Cite error: There are <ref group=Note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Archive_11&oldid=1142519485"