Jump to content

Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

Requested move 2 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: There's no consensus for the move in the discussion. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

List of sovereign states → List of countries – When people want to find a list of countries, they're expecting to find an article named just that, not some esoteric jargon that most people don't use. The difference between "country" and "sovereign state" is mostly just semantics and "List of countries" already redirects here. Both readers and editors can reasonably assume that "countries" refers to what this list currently calls "sovereign states", as opposed to constituent countries or other uses of the term, since the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of a list called "List of countries" is most likely the former anyways. Other relevant guideline key words: WP:ASTONISH, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:COMMONNAME Prisencolin (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Sadly, because of a terminological quirk in the wording of the United Kingdom, Wales, Scotland, and England are also "countries" and certain editors would want to include them as separate entities (we've had this discussion before). It's the equivalent of trying to name this list "List of states" and having American editors then want to add Texas, Utah, California, etc. as separate entries. That's why the word "sovereign" is important (to keep out Texas) and the word "states" is important (to keep out Wales). --Taivo (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • In that case I don't see why other political entities such Scotland, Wales etc. can't be included on this particular along footnotes indicated that they are not considered sovereign states. This list should seek to use the broadest definition of "country" possible since the usage of the term is so vague. As far as google can tell me, there are no other contemporary political subdivisions that are referred to as countries, at least in English, so there probably shouldn't any more non-sovereign countries to list. Either that or it's just an American thing that country=sovereign state, but this isn't a type of WP:ENGVAR as far as I know.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
So you don't just want to rename the list, you want to completely repurpose it?
Or more precisely, you want to have a list of sovereign states that randomly puts England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in as well. The bias that this would create in this list - through the implication that these four uniquely should be considered equal or equivalent to sovereign states - is extreme and entirely intolerable. Plus it would leave Wikipedia without a list of sovereign states (or, of countries meaning sovereign states), an extraordinary omission in any encyclopædia. My oppose is strongly reinforced. Kahastok talk 18:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Basque Country, Greenland, Aruba, Nagorno-Karabakh, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, Sint Maarten, Curacao, Palestine, Tibet come to mind. Then we have all the entities which are not usually described as countries but sometimes act like them - members of FIFA, of the IOC, so that's Puerto Rico, Faeroe Islands, Bermuda, Gibraltar, Virgin Islands (both US and British), Macau, New Caledonia, etc etc. Enough complications? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Nope. It's clear systemic bias to restrict ourselves to English sources. The German word Land means "country" and is the standard constitutional term for the 16 constituent parts of Germany. Austria too has "federal countries", Bundesländer. There is basically no limit to what might be included if we're going based on anything anyone has ever called a country. That's why we have limits. Kahastok talk 19:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - your description of our naming policies is either misguided or disingenuous. The actual policy calls for judgement, balancing of criteria on five principles (Recognizability; Naturalness; Precision; Conciseness; Consistency). At times, we treat them equally. At other times, we might chose to prioritise one of these over the others. To quote "It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus." In this case, the title favours precision over the others (as you've identified). The word country is vague in the English language, in multiple ways; the difference between sovereign state and country is not just semantics, but very important in the lives of many people on a daily basis. It would not improve this page, the encyclopedia or (and importantly) the practical management of this article to rename. As noted, the page List of countries redirects here so anyone searching for the natural/recongizable name is taken to the correct article. What a rename would entail would include a much longer textual element describing why some countries are here and others aren't, making it much less usable (unless we expanded this list to include different entries, making it a fundamentally different page). Our main competitor (Enyclopedia britannica) uses 'List of countries (nation-state)', recognising the need to clarify but in a much more convoluted way to keep the recognisablityy - I prefer our approach! In addition, the page has been at this title since 2003. While things can be moved after a long time, a further key naming policy is that we should not move from long standing names without significant reason - I don't see that List of countries is a significantly better name than the current one. At best, it solves some problems by creating new ones.

BTW - the UK example give is relevant but by no means a main reason. I think it would be better avoiding individual national cases in this discussion. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - This is not a list of all countries, it is a list of a specific subset of countries, only those countries which are sovereign states. The article title should accurately reflect the content. The distinction between countries and sovereign states is not merely semantic, hence why we have separate articles on the two subjects. Per WP:PRECISION, the title should unambiguously define the subject, which the proposed title does not do as it conflates the two subjects. If the OP believes that the primary topic of "countries" is "sovereign states", I would suggest nominating sovereign states for a rename. This article should defer to the consensus on the primary topic there, and so in the absence of a change to a consensus on that article we should not change this article's title. TDL (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose (but see below Kahastok talk 18:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)). I broadly agree with the others.
"List of countries", by my reckoning, would be a legitimate name for this article. Wikipedia rules, such as at WP:SAL, are quite clear that selection criteria in the article itself define the list, whereas the title of the list only describes the list. As the vast majority of English-speakers will read it, the primary meaning of list of countries perfectly accurately describes the contents of the list and the concept described by the selection criteria for the list.
But this is not the only concept that it might describe. The word "country" ambiguous, having multiple closely-related but distinctive meanings. And this ambiguity has been actively exploited in the past by some users pushing some points of view in related lists. The ease of managing the list is a significant issue here, and renaming the list to remove precision does make it harder. Indeed, we used to have a "list of countries" separate from this list - which was a FL for nearly three years - but it was redirected here precisely because it became impossible to manage. (It didn't help that its inclusion criteria were difficult to defend.)
There is no reason in policy why we cannot or should not use the current title. It is concise, and perfectly well describes the concept with reasonable precision. In this case, it is reasonable (as per SNC) to suggest that a more precise title is ultimately of benefit to Wikipedia. The redirect list of countries leads here, so it's not like people looking for a "list of countries" won't get here. I think we're better off with the status quo. Kahastok talk 23:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Switch to strong oppose because it is now clear that the OP's intention is not just to rename the list but to repurpose in a way that would create enormous WP:POV problems and leave Wikipedia without any list of sovereign states at all. Kahastok talk 18:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Ditto. If the OP wants to spin List of countries off into a new article, monitor it, make it properly referenced and avoiding original research, then they can give it a go - but that's not a reason to move, rename or change this page. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Woah calm down there, I was just throwing a suggestion out and looking for feedback. I didn't say I was going to repurpose the list definitely. Come to think of it I may as well just strike that comment out.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Rename but do not repurpose. I agree with the OP that this distinction, while absolutely meaningful, will fly over the head of 98% of the readership. On the other hand, I wildly disagree with the OP that the likes of Wales or Scotland should be misleadingly added, as they are not what the same average reader means by countries. So keep the lede as is, saying sovereign states and explaining the distinction. SnowFire (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking of withdrawing this RM and just putting the list of countries redirect up for WP:RFD. That might be a more appropriate action for this situation. Any objections to closing this?--Prisencolin (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I think that would better reflect the article that you're imagining. However - can I suggest that you look at the talk pages on the old 'List of countries' article? As suggested above, the reason we scrapped that page is that it was unmanageable following Wikipedia's policies. I think a good version of that article is possible (and introduction of better semi-protection and pending changes since 2009 would help), but it would require a sustained amount of work to create it, reference it and perhaps most importantly manage it. So as above - if you're up for that then go for it, but if it's just a case of creating it and then letting it evolve then I think it would soon revert to the sort of uneyclopedic mess that it previously was.Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
We actually thrashed this out in a previous RFD where a very similar proposal was made.
I actually think it very unlikely that there is any viable alternative definition of "country" that might be used for a "list of countries" allowing a coherent and stable list without WP:OR and WP:POV and without duplicating existing content. And I see no reason why a new list is useful or beneficial to Wikipedia. Plus changing the redirect would remove a useful redirect to this page, which almost certainly contains the information that a reader looking for "list of countries" wants (including e.g. listing England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in their proper place as the constituent countries of the United Kingdom). Kahastok talk 19:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, one of the main issues with the current setup is WP:CONSISTENCY when referring to the use of "countries" in the titles of other articles. Articles like List of countries by Human Development Index, have the same inclusion criteria as this list, except this article is called list of sovereign states. This could probably be more easily solved by retitling those kinds of articles to include "sovereign states". Furthermore the topics of sovereign state and country are separate articles, but according to this article country should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT into sovereign state. It would also be nice to have some standaline list that has all the kunds of entities contained in the various Lists of countries and territories. As far as potentially a list of countries with a very broad definition that borders on WP:OR and WP:NPOV, we already have these in the form of those country and territory topical lists.-Prisencolin (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Note that Lists of countries and territories is somewhat misleading as a guide to article titles because it goes through redirects in order to maintain a consistent presentation. The topical list naming is inconsistent. Some lists refer to "countries", some to "sovereign states", I think some refer to "sovereign countries". Quite a few (most?) of the lists also include dependent territories: in some cases "countries" includes dependent territories, in others we feel the need to mention them separately.
Many years ago, I actually tried to do something to wrangle this into some kind of order. There were a number of editors back then who were apparently furious about the use of the word "country" to refer to sovereign states in those lists. So furious, in fact, that they refused to do anything about it.
In terms of inclusion criteria the conclusion we reached back then was that:
  • Lists based on a single source should use the source. If we're replicating a CIA or World Bank list, we replicate it in its entirety, even if that means listing the European Union or NATO or something.
  • Lists based on multiple sources should start from an external standard - ISO 3166-1 being preferred - while making appropriate and neutral allowance for the states with limited recognition (which you can easily define as entities on the list of sovereign states not already included).
  • Where context dictates some other rule, common sense applies. A list of countries by number of registered football (soccer) players is probably best done by association, for example.
Any list out there that does not have a clear selection criterion, or that has a selection criterion that fails WP:OR and/or WP:NPOV, needs to be improved to meet the policy standard. That's a fair bit of work and it's not going to happen overnight. But there's not a need or benefit in the interim in our creating a list that also fails those standards. Kahastok talk 09:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose and keep List of countries redirecting here. We thrashed all this out some years ago, at a time when it actually was called "List of countries", and we ended up with tihs title in part because people kept asking why Wales and Scotland weren't on the list despite being "countries". On the other hand, there is no encyclopedic value in a list of entities that may at one point or another have been called a "country", and the vast majority of people would expect roughly the list we have here when looking for "List of countries" so it makes no sense or delete or repurpose that redirect. In short, the current setup has been stable and uncontroversial for some years, and there's no reason to change it.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sovereign is used to stop disputes over what can be considered a country, for instance the pierre and miquelon islands are under france, but almost fully autonomous, so are they a country? Yes, are they sovereign, no. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Remove EU entry

Please remove the wrong information "Member of the EU" at the United Kingdom entry. Janomoogo (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The UK is currently still a member of the EU, Brexit vote or not. Until they actually leave, the note will stay. Astrofreak92 (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2016

Hi,

The flag for New Caledonia is NOT the independentist one. It's the french blue, white and red.

Thank you for correcting this big mistake. Hoppihoppa (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane2007 talk 06:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

native american nations

Does the list of sovereign native american nations belong on this list? If there is no disagreement, I intend to be bold --Bidimaker (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that the (several hundred) native American nations are sovereign to a higher degree than states in a federation or devolved autonomies, but are still subject to the United States/Canada/etc. in important ways, i.e. their ability to conduct foreign affairs is governed by the laws of the host nation, and they wouldn't be eligible for UN membership unless their legal relationship with their host changed. Astrofreak92 (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
My thought is, I cannot find a list of US sovereign nations... and so there should be such a list here, or somewhere else, yea? Most people have no idea how many sovereign nations live within the states. In the context of what is happening at Standing Rock (and that which has happened before). I think we need to educate the world on these existing places which are pat of the national news, in the USA. I will seek an existing list, within wiki. thank you for your considered position. They are sovereign, but this might be a UN list, yea? --Bidimaker (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
US law apparently considers native American nations within its territory as "dependent domestic nations" that share sovereignty with the federal government and with the states. There is a list of such nations here List of federally recognized tribes, and I assume there is a similar list for Canadian first nations. This isn't *exactly* a UN list, as some non-UN members are listed, but yes, native American nations that consider themselves a part of the United States or Canada and whose citizens are entitled to vote in their elections and are subject to portions of state/province and federal law are not considered "states" in the context of this list. If you believe that there should be a list on Wikipedia that includes non-federally recognized tribes (like tribes with only state recognition or with no recognition) that meet some other set of criteria, or that includes entities from multiple countries, please feel free to either create such a list or propose such a list on the talk pages of existing lists.
It may also be valuable to make a note of the sovereignty of native American groups in the Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty section of the table for sovereign states that have such "dependent nations". Perhaps a discussion of why such a note does not currently exist can be found in the talk page archives, but if there isn't you could also propose one. Astrofreak92 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
That is an interesting point. The states and provinces of federations also have sovereignty, which they share with the central government. One of the problems with this article is that it does not define "sovereign state." TFD (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
It does however link to an article that does provide definitions, sovereign state. The definition used there includes the note that "It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state" which would mean states in federation and "domestic dependent nations" like the native American nations would not qualify for consideration. Astrofreak92 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:LINKSTYLE says that links should not substitute for defining terms. The linked article provides competing definitions. Some states met one condition and not another or neither. They are not helpful for example in determining when Canada, Australia or New Zealand became sovereign. Add to that is that in these states, legally the sovereign is the state. TFD (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a defition at the bottom of the page, entitled criteria for inclusion which informs the reader of the two competing modern theories of statehood and what polities merit inclusion into the page.XavierGreen (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The Native American nations should be deleted from the article. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
They were never added to this page, and are not listed on this page now.XavierGreen (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Some clarification: Under US law, Native American "tribal governments" (the term usually used in US politics) are considered sovereign nations but NOT sovereign states. That is, they are not considered to possess sovereign territory, but only to be sovereign political entities (perhaps more analogous to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, though as you know they do not have the same international recognition as that does). "Nation" is intended in the strict, historical sense of "a people" rather than the modern casual sense of "a nation-state". Under US law, their territory is considered to be property of the US federal government and sovereign territory of the United States, held in special trust for them under the administration of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The tribal governments themselves, of course, may have different perspectives and claims regarding this arrangement. Also, note that US states are also sometimes called "sovereign" within domestic law. This is usually not considered the same thing as the "sovereignty" we speak of in the international context. GeoEvan (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not know where you get the distinction between nation and state? The territories they inhabit in the U.S. are of course subject to Congress but the territories they inhabit outside the U.S. are not and they were not considered citizens, even if born within the U.S., unless naturalized. And what is the sovereignty "in the international context?" Isn't it just which government other nations recognize as competent to sign treaties? So the People's Republic of China was not recognized until the 70s. Does that mean it was not sovereign? The U.S. states btw agreed that "The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...." IOW the states remain sovereign but exercise it jointly through their senators. OTOH, Canada's central government has no power to bind any province in a treaty, who have their own treaty-making powers. TFD (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Year of formation/establishment?

Any reason why this couldn't be added for each state? I don't think Wikipedia has a simple sortable list of which active nations are longest lasting or sortable by order. This could serve that role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.109.52.128 (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

We have List of sovereign states by date of formation. But the question becomes complicated particularly in Europe and Asia where dates may be unclear or open to interpretation. I would not include the information here because it would be potentially controversial and tangential to our purpose. Kahastok talk 18:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
It is often unclear when a state was established. TFD (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


OK, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.109.52.128 (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom section

Hey everyone,

The section on the United Kingdom needs some fixing. It has to do with the section on its listing of constituent countries. Someone messed up the Northern Ireland part. thanks earth1000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earth1000 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done, CMD (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

Israel is the country which doesn't recognize by Pakistan which is not mentioned here. maliki (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The Israel line clearly states "Partially unrecognized" in a big orange box.
Clicking that links to the International recognition of Israel which explains the situation for all 161 UN states + 4 Non-UN states in detail. - Arjayay (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC) ⋅

RfC about country names

WP:SNOW closure.Unanimous consensus to not rename even a single article.Winged Blades Godric 14:43, 20 February 2017 (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.

Because a number of articles have common names per WP:COMMONNAME, could any of the countries listed here be renamed to match the United Nations (or the IOC designations) below per WP:PRECISE?:

And the others below:

  • China → People's Republic of China
  • Kyrgyzstan → Kyrgyz Republic (per the Canadian Travel and Tourism website)
  • Taiwan → Republic of China

Feel feel to share your thoughts and comments. 2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:2137:266C:1A2F:4BCD (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''', *'''Oppose''' or *'''Comment''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Threaded discussion

Additional comments That's not what WP:PRECISE is for. The common names tend to be reasonable unambiguous. CMD (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts are more along the lines of "Why fix what isn't broken?", but I basically agree with Chipmunkdavis. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If WP:PRECISE were an issue (and it is not per CMD - we prefer common names over official names and existing article naming is not ambiguous) then that would mean changing the article titles; this page would only be affected because we would change our naming in response to changes on the articles on the countries.

Since it appears to me possible that this RFC intends to change names of other articles, it is worth being clear that - as a rule - even if this RFC did come out in favour it wouldn't necessarily mean anything as you'd still need to overcome any objections on each article individually. If this is what is intended, therefore, I would suggest that we speedy close as the discussion is in the wrong place. Kahastok talk 15:36, 11 February 2017 (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.

Short and formal names column

Czechia is the official English short form of the Czech Republic and yet is not listed. Czechia2016 (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The Gambia

The article puts The Gambia's official name as The Islamic Republic of the Gambia however new president Adama Barrow has since changed the name of the country back to theRepublic of The Gambia thank you for your time. Creepkiller307 (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit request.

Gambia ---> Remove "Islamic" from the official name as per the new president. How was this not done earlier?

8.40.151.110 (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

China

China is an undisputed sovereign state and should be noted as such. The list incorrectly lists the PRC and the ROC/Taiwan as separate states. All they are, are different names for the same state China, given by rival governments both claiming legitimacy over the whole state of China. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of sovereign states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Principality of Hutt River

I notice that the list of nations does not include the Principality of Hutt River(PHR), a 75 kilometre square nation established in 1970 on the Australian continent, recognised by Queen Elizabeth II, and which has all of the attributes required by the Montevideo Convention (1933). PHR is independent and greater in area than several other nations. By what standards is PHR excluded? PHR has existed as a sovereign entity for almost fifty years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.38 (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

In order to demonstrate that a putative state belongs on this list you would need to demonstrate either:
  • that the putative state is often considered by reliable sources independent of the subject (e.g. scholars or international lawyers) to meet the standard of the declarative theory. The sources need to be explicit on this point. What Wikipedians might think is not relevant. Or,
  • that the putative state has been recognised as a sovereign state by a UN member state. Again, this needs to be explicit. The notion that the use the words "Principality of Hutt River" by a governmental agency counts as recognition is a typical micronation claim and does not meet (or even come anywhere close to) the standard we require.
The difference between a sovereign state and a micronation is well understood in the literature. It is very clear that Hutt River is a micronation and thus does not belong on a list such as this. Kahastok talk 17:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

China's recognition

The article (protected so I cannot edit it myself) states that "China is not recognised by 21 UN member states and the Holy See, which instead recognise Taiwan." This should be "20 UN member states and the Holy See" and the note about Taiwan should be formulated as "which with the exception of Bhutan recognise Taiwan instead." - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drieakko (talk • contribs)

@Drieakko: To be fair, you are an autoconfirmed user so you can actually edit the article if you'd like. - SantiLak (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, fixed. Drieakko (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@Drieakko: The article is wrong as quoted by you. It should say that the CPC is not recognised by 21 UN members as the legitimate government of China. I don't know of any UN member that does not recognise China as a state. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Vatican City

The Vatican City is not sovereign, as noted in the article. I propose that it is moved down to the list of other entities at the end of the list, where it better belongs. Comment? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving to the bottom would be inappropriate because the Holy See is a UN Observer State. More widely, I would be concerned if we were to delist in any way on this basis - I think it's splitting too fine a hair for a relatively broad article such as this. There is a state there that meets our standard for inclusion through diplomatic recognition. Kahastok talk 19:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Other Unrecognized Countries

These groups control territory in one way or another and have a declaration of independence: Donetsk People's Republic: Controls and governs its territory; has a ceasefire with Ukraine. Internationally recognized as part of the Donetsk Oblast of Ukraine. Luhansk People's Republic: Controls and governs its territory; has a ceasefire with Ukraine. Internationally recognized as part of the Luhansk Oblast of Ukraine. Islamic State (ISIS): Controls and governs its territory; at war with Iraq and Syria (along with many others); Internationally recognized as a terrorist organization. Sovereign Military Order of Malta: Governs extraterritorial areas in Rome and Malta; Recognized by the Vatican City State (Holy See) as an independent sovereign state. Internationally recognized as a sovereign entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:98D:BF00:4D2E:1C8F:B562:CB9F (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

These cases have been much discussed in the past, the detail of which can be found in the archives. I suggest you review them and make a proposal only if you have overriding new arguments. Kahastok talk 19:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

ISIS

Shouldn't ISIS be included? ISIS is Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.100.180 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Having the word "state" in its name for itself does not mean it belongs. There are lots of entities called "states" in the world, most of which aren't on this list.
This case has been much discussed in the past, the detail of which can be found in the archives. I suggest you review them and make a proposal only if you have overriding new arguments. Kahastok talk 19:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Estonia, Israel and the USA do also not recognize DPRK

The article states that North Korea is not recognized by three UN Members. According to this section on the North Korea foreign relations page six UN Members do not recognize North Korea as a state. It gives four sources for this claim. These countries are the USA, Japan, France, South Korea, Israel, Estonia. (Taiwan does also not recognize it as a state.)

Is this something which should be changed? I cannot edit it myself. Yuyuhunter 11:10 16 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuyuhunter (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2017

Sri Lanka - shouldn't the information "formerly known as Ceylon" be added as a footnote and not in the "Further information" column?
Syria - there is a missing dot after the last sentence in the "Further information" column.
Taiwan - in the "UN System" column there should be a semicolon before the information that it is an observer state. Additionally, there should be used an en dash between years of Taiwan's UN membership in the "UN System" column, instead of the hyphen. Thank you. 89.66.254.10 (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Nihlus 13:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. 89.66.254.10 (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

DNR and LNR

Maybe it's time we should consider adding the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic as de facto states in this list. Their declaration of independence was in 2014, and it's been three years since. Academic and journalistic sources have appeared that consider the DNR/LNR as "de facto states" now.

  • De Facto States In The Post-Soviet Space (24 April 2017) "This module examines the circumstances surrounding the emergence of the ‘youngest’ de facto states in the post-Soviet space: People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk."
  • Unrecognized States and Secession in the 21st Century (27 May 2017) "Moreover, new contested territories that could be described as de facto states have merged, most notably the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic in Ukraine. These two newest additions to the universe of de facto states have started to create some of the trappings of statehood..."
  • International Studies Quarterly, Volume 61, Issue 2 (23 March 2017) "From Somaliland in the Horn of Africa to, more recently, the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics in Eastern Ukraine, de facto states function as alternative structures of authority in a post-1945 international order dominated by recognized nation-states."
  • Following the Riga summit, more realism is required over what the EU can offer its eastern partners (24 June 2015) "Russia’s ability to coerce EaP states relies on territorial weaknesses, such as influence over existing de facto states (Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia) and new de facto states (the ‘People’s Republics’ in Donetsk and Luhansk), and anti-democratic elites (e.g. in Belarus and Azerbaijan)."

Also, to throw in a little more legitimacy, the DNR and LNR have been recognized by South Ossetia and diplomatic relations have been established. 2017NewYearNewMe (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you check the archives, because we've considered these over and over and over.
Do you have any sources that consider the case in terms of the declarative theory and find that the test is passed? The above don't do so, and in the absence of such sources the inclusion criteria are not met. Kahastok talk 17:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the second source does in fact go through the criteria of the "declarative theory" in explaining the critera for meeting defacto statehood without using the term declarative theory, and later on in the text after establishing what constitutes a defacto state calls the DPR and LPR as defacto states. As such I think its a good enough source, and I think inclusion is merited.XavierGreen (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
We went through this one already. They are called "contested territories that could be described as de facto states" (emphasis mine), and the case is "debatable". If we can find no lawyer, no academic, no diplomat on the entire planet is willing to accept without reservation they are states, Wikipedia should not be here telling them that they're all wrong. Kahastok talk 18:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
All defacto states are by their nature contested territories. That is the entire reason for calling them "defacto independent" or a "state with limited recognition". If their werent any such contested states, there would be no need for a states with limited recognition page at all. I haven't seen the second source listed above before, and the writers are academics and political scientists. It appears to me that a reliable source has been shown which states they meet the criteria outlined in the declarative theory, and thus the criteria for inclusion on this page.XavierGreen (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. The source does not say that "they meet the criteria outlined in the declarative theory". At most, it considers the possibility that they might.
  2. Even if we accept that we have one source that might be said to consider the possibility that they might meet the standard, that falls far short of their being "often regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood" as per our criteria.
For a state to be "contested" there has to be two sides. We can demonstrate those two sides in all the existing cases that rely on this rule. In this case we can easily demonstrate one side - which is the position of every UN member in the world. We cannot find a single independent academic, lawyer or diplomat on the planet who unequivocally takes the other. Kahastok talk 21:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

New name: Artsakh for Nagorno-Karabakh Rep.

Shouldn't there be a footnote somewhere saying "formerly known as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" or something like that? 49.206.122.91 (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Armenia-Pakistan?

Why does this refer to "Armenia-Pakistan" disputes, when that appears to merely be a proxy for the more-notable Armenia-Azerbaijan disputes? power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@2017NewYearNewMe: The issues regarding China-Taiwan and Israel-Palestine are well-known and well-documented. The situations in Korea and Cyprus are frozen conflicts. Are you saying that the only other instance of a UN member not recognizing another UN member is Armenia-Pakistan? I find that difficult to believe, mostly because I'm not entirely sure what definition of "not recognized" could apply here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the history of this article, the point about Armenia's non-recognition by Pakistan was added in 2010. Definitional issues aside, I don't dispute that, though I would not consider all the included sources to be neutral. The current table format was imposed by mediation in May 2011, and did not consider Armenia to be in a sovereignty dispute at the time of its imposition. The current footnote "This column indicates whether or not a state is the subject of a major sovereignty dispute. Only states whose entire sovereignty is disputed by another state are listed." has been in place in roughly the same form since the creation of the table format. I don't feel that anything Pakistan has said or done implies that Armenia's "entire sovereignty is disputed". power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Catalonia

Now that Catalonia has declared its independence, what should we do? Add it to the list? or hold off until the smoke clears. Note: Spain doesn't recognize Catalonia's declaration. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Being discussed at Talk:List of states with limited recognition#Republic of Catalonia Declaration. Probably best to discuss there at this point. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2017

Armenia - there is a missing dot after the first sentence in the "Further information" column. 89.66.254.10 (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Though trivial  — Ammarpad (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but it was still a punctuation mistake. Thanks. 89.66.254.10 (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Armenia

I don't understand why the information that Pakistan doesn't recognize Armenia is included in the Further information column and not in the Sovereignty dispute one. The lead says: "The sovereignty dispute column indicates states whose sovereignty is undisputed (190 states) and states whose sovereignty is disputed (16 states, out of which there are 6 member states...)", while in the table we can see only 5 red cells. Additionally, in the List of states with limited recognition article Armenia is included as a UN member state not recognised by at least one UN member state (among the 5 other cases). Shouldn't it be changed somehow to make it clearer for readers? Thank you in advance. Jojnee (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It's because while Pakistan doesn't recognize Armenia, it has no claim for the territory. The Sovereignty dispute column refers to disputed sovereignty with another entity. Your other observation seems correct, I shall amend the text. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Jojnee (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of sovereign states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Abyei Area

Pursuant to the page criteria, the Abyei Area should be bulleted under Sudan. It is an area over which Sudanese sovereignty is limited due to treaty (the Comprehensive Peace Agreement) in the manner that sovereignty over Hong Kong, Svalbard, ect is limited. It is de-jure governed by a joint Sudan-South Sudan administration, defacto it is occupied by UN forces.XavierGreen (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


Inconsistencies

I quickly checked the Table and can see a couple of obvious logical inconsistencies:

  1. Unrecognized states and a number of recognized states are mixed together in the same section of the Table as "other states". I am not telling that unrecognized states should be removed from the page at this point, but they must be very clearly separated from others. I would suggest placing them in footnotes.
  2. The state of Israel. It is possibly true that some of their annexations were not recognized by the international community, however same was done by some other countries. We should either (a) include all other annexations by all countries into the Table, or (b) exclude them from the row for Israel. Either is fine, but I think (b) would be a lot more logical. It is generally accepted that annexing someone else territory does not make country-occupier not a sovereign state. However, if a number of countries does not recognize the country (Israel in this case) directly, that of course should be included in the Table. My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

On your first point, if you want to know why the list is organised the way it is, I suggest you start reading here and continue here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. I should warn you, that's about 1.7 megabytes of text.

You will find that all the alternative ways of doing this have been discussed, in great detail, and over the course of many years. I am not sure I want to see that repeated without compelling new arguments, and I'm pretty sure others here don't either. I do not see any compelling new arguments in your text, which seems to consider "unrecognized states" and "recognized states" as absolute and clearly-defined categories. They are not. Those states that are listed that have no recognition are the cases that clearly meet the inclusion criteria based on the declarative theory of statehood. This can be - and has repeatedly been - reliably sourced.

On your second point, I would imagine that the discussion of East Jerusalem and the West Bank comes under "The extent to which a state's sovereignty is recognised internationally" since it is not generally recognised (unlike most other examples). We already mention the fact that several states do not recognise Israel in the "sovereignty dispute" column. Kahastok talk 21:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

  • First point. Yes, I see the problem. This is impossible to read. I also agree this is not clear cut. I thought the states currently marked by yellow/"No membership" are definitely a separate taxon (i.e. they are different from all others also in a number of additional parameters) and therefore should be placed into a separate subsection of the Table. Was it discussed before?
  • Second point. I would suggest to describe the row for Israel exactly as in the List of states with limited recognition, i.e. yes, sure, we are telling that Israel, founded in 1948, is not recognised by 31 UN members and so on (see the "List of states with limited recognition"). Why not? That would be shorter and more logical. My very best wishes (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, yes, it was discussed, in quite a lot of detail as I recall. It's all in the archives. When you deal with this discussion, you have to remember that what you regard as obvious or common sense is not universally regarded as obvious or common sense. That's one of the reasons why it takes so much effort to reach a conclusion.
After looking at RS, it appears there are several well defined "puppet states" (named explicitly in the quotation below) that are different from others. They are marked light yellow in the Table. They have very limited recognition and do not take any part at all in UN. I will comment more about this below. My very best wishes (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Secondly, note that List of states with limited recognition does mention the Palestinian dispute, whereas your version of this page does not. This is quite a large difference. Kahastok talk 11:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)#
Yes, I certainly agree. The Palestinian dispute should be included as in the List of states with limited recognition, i.e. in column "Further information" as territorial claims by other entities. ("Syria claims Golan Heights. Lebanon claims Shebaa Farms. Palestine claims areas controlled by Israel.") That would make the row for Israel consistent with the rest of the Table. My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
1. The "other states" is a classification by the UN according to this article, although I can find no source for that. 2. Russia also annexed territory (the Crimea) which is unrecognized but not mentioned in the list, so there is no reason to single out Israel. Why don't we just merge this article into Member states of the United Nations? Note too that there are many dependent territories and subnational states that have some degree of international personality, but are not listed. TFD (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
1. Unless there are good RS which define a classification, it qualifies as WP:OR (same would be about any biological classification or whatever). I think there are actually such sources, except they do not classify countries as UN members versus non-UN members, but simply mention a specific set of 6 or 7 territories with disputed statehood (see discussion below). 2. Yes, I agree, this is not a place to include annexations. However, the inclusion of territories claimed by other states seems logical for the Table, and it was already included for many countries. If we want to be consistent, we should include such claims for Israel and for Russia, i.e. move Crimea from the raw of Ukraine to the row of Russia - as a territory claimed by Ukraine. 3. As about merging, this is not an unreasonable suggestion, but I do not think such merger or deletion will get consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

We spent literally years debating how to split this list up without OR. Everyone recognises it's not perfect. But it is most likely the best way of doing it without OR. Do you actually want to spend the next year re-discussing it, ultimately reaching the same conclusion?

No this is not a fork of the list of UN member states. One of the basic things you would expect an encyclopaedia to provide is a list of the sovereign states of the world, and you would be pretty shocked if you found that that list did not include the Vatican City, a fully-recognised fully-sovereign and independent state that is not a member of the UN.

The key point about Israel is that it covers essentially the entire territory of the State of Palestine, which is also on this list. This is an unusual situation that does not apply to Crimea. We do list disputes where they cover the entirety of another state on the list e.g. China and Taiwan, Azerbaijan and Artsakh, Georgia and Abkhazia/South Ossetia, Serbia and Kosovo. Note that we do not mention the Golan Heights or Sheba'a Farms because they do not cover another the entirety of another state on the list. Kahastok talk 17:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

First point. Of course not. I think the reason for disagreement is clear (thank you for discussion!), but it should be addressed by other means if anyone cares. Last point (using only whole entities) - OK, agree. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Well no you don't expect an encyclopedia to provide a list of sovereign states because there is no general agreement on what states should be included mostly because there is no agreed definition on what the term means. So we rely on editor's original research for what should be included. How independent must a state be and how many other states must recognize it before it makes the list? That's a matter of judgment. 04:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC) (comment by TFD)
Yes, I agree: this is rather complicated; there are no exact criteria for inclusion, and deciding by wikipedians that "N" recognizing states would be enough for inclusion is WP:OR. However, after looking at a few books and review articles on the subject of sovereign states, it appears that only 5 to 7 items must be excluded from the list. In other cases, the academic sources do not claim that an entity (such as Taiwan, for example) was not a sovereign state, even if it was involved in territorial disputes and was not recognized by many countries. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Criteria

I would like to ask why the criteria based on the constitutive theory of statehood require a state to be recognized by at least one UN member state, and not at least one another state which meets the criteria of the constitutive theory of statehood? I mean, (a hypothetical situation) if (only) Nauru recognizes a state it can be added to the list, whereas if (only) Vatican City recognizes an another one state it can’t. It seems that the criteria connected with the constitutive theory should use that theory’s "standards", but I may be wrong... Thank you in advance for the answer. 89.66.254.10 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you telling that more "sovereign" states should be included to the list and how many? Note that contrary to the selection criteria on the page, one state in the list was not recognized by any other states. For me this is also really, really confusing.My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
No entry on the list does not meet the selection criteria on the article. The list sets two standards, one based on the declarative theory, one based on the constitutive theory, and only one of those standards is required to be met.
Note that you are in my experience the only person who has seemed to need this apparently-simple point explained to them on so many separate occasions. Kahastok talk 21:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The answer is that you can imagine a situation where Russia recognises South Ossetia, which recognises Transnistria, which recognises Sealand, which recognises Hutt River Province, which recognises the Kingdom of Lovely, which recognises my bedroom. Suddenly my bedroom is on the list.
The current standard, drawing a line at UN member state recognitions, avoids such a scenario. Kahastok talk 21:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the answer. 89.66.254.10 (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2017

The Further information cell for New Zealand states that "the Cook Islands and Niue have diplomatic relations with 46 and 18 UN members respectively," whereas the cells for the Cook Islands and Niue say "the Cook Islands maintains diplomatic relations with 49 states" and "Niue maintains diplomatic relations with 20 states" respectively. Shouldn't it be unified? Thank you. 89.66.254.10 (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Edit: Also, there is probably some kind of a mistake with the China/Taiwan recognition. The cell for Taiwan states that "the Republic of China is recognised by 19 UN member states and the Holy See" and the cell for PRC says that "China is not recognised by 19 UN member states and the Holy See, which with the exception of Bhutan, recognise Taiwan instead". It should be 20 UN members (19 UN member states recognizing Taiwan plus Bhutan), I think. 89.66.254.10 (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

checkY Done as per the requests above. The corrections were performed in the following edits: [1] [2] [3] (Note: the Philippines has subsequently recognised Niue). - Wiz9999 (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: My edit regarding the Cook Islands and Niue was reverted appropriately, as the description text clearly refers to UN member diplomatic relations in the New Zealand line and overall diplomatic relations in the individual cook island and niue lines. (Well spotted Jan CZ, I had missed that note). - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Puppet states

I do have one concern, however. Here is a good scholarly source, and it tells:
As Russia’s position with regard to Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia (and Armenia’s position with regard to Nagorno-Karabakh) is similar to that of Turkey with regard to the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, these recognitions are insufficient in order to indicate the statehood of these territories. Like the TRNC, these territories are not independent states. The situation of Crimea on March 17, 2014 was identical [88].
I am sure there are other good RS claiming the same (can be found if needed). And the sources provide an explanation. If I am not mistaken, these "states" are generally regarded as "Puppet states" that could not exist on their own. So, why should we include these countries in the same Table contrary to scholarly RS? What was the answer from the previous discussions? After quickly looking at them, the answer is not at all clear. People were voting for criteria "a", "b", "c", etc., instead of simply looking what reliable sources tell about certain countries. I think such "voting" is hardly consistent with WP:NPOV and can be even considered as WP:OR. Maybe to place these "states" into a separate Table as "states with questionable status" because scholarly RS tell they are not independent/sovereign states? That is what I would do.My very best wishes (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
A state with limited recognition is by definition a claimed state that not everyone agrees exists. If we were to remove entries on the basis that some reliable source denies their existence as states, we would remove China and Taiwan, both Koreas, Armenia, Cyprus (both sides), Israel and Palestine, along with every other state in the "other states" list. Is that what you propose?
We already place these claimed states into a separate part of the table. The proxy is UN status, because that's the least worst way of doing at (as it happens to work pretty well), but the fact that there is significant dispute over the non-UN members' right to exist is basically the whole point of splitting the list in the default view. Note that the decision as to whether to divide the list, and how to do it, was a major focus of those 1.7 MB of archives I pointed you at
Before you point out the Cook Islands and Niue are not disputed, let me point out that there's another 460kB archive discussing those cases. Kahastok talk 22:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Sure, all disputed states are disputed, but a scholarly source tells they were not states at all. Right now we have Taiwan in the same part of the Table as South Ossetia. If you can give me a quotation from a recent scholarly RS (similar to something above) telling, after analysis, that "Taiwan is not an independent state", I will agree with you immediately. I mean the assertion by the sources that it is not at all a state rather than saying this is "a disputed state", "a state not recognized by such and such countries", a state "claimed by the People's Republic of China", etc. (of course it was claimed by PRC). My very best wishes (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we have Taiwan in the same part of the table as South Ossetia. The vast majority POV among states in the world is that South Ossetia is not a state separate from Georgia and the vast majority POV among states in the world is that Taiwan is not a state separate from China.
If there is a difference it is that the one has significantly more support than the other. Four UN member states, including one UNSC permanent member, claim that South Ossetia is a separate state from Georgia. No UN member state, nor even the government of Taiwan itself, considers Taiwan to be a separate state from China. If there is one that needs to be moved to a sub-list of non-states, it is Taiwan, not South Ossetia.
We did discuss how to split this list in excruciating detail before. If you have overriding new arguments, please put them. Yes we've seen these ones haven't got many recognitions before. We've also had not all recognitions are equal so we should only accept those recognised by UNSC permanent members. You are favouring the declarative theory, others view recognition as the key point and want us to ignore the de facto situation.
Regardless, the effect of your proposal seems to be that we would adopt the Western POV in every dispute in the world. Surely it is obvious why that is not appropriate. Kahastok talk 12:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Are you telling that Taiwan is not a well established state? The existence of territorial disputes between countries A and B or desire for unification do not prevents each of them to be a well established state. "Western POV"? This is not about "East" against the "West", but about WP:RS and WP:NPOV. But I am thinking one would need an RfC here. My very best wishes (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Are you telling me that you think it is neutral and appropriate for Wikipedia to reject the POV of every government on the planet because a single Wikipedian disagrees with it? That's not how Wikipedia works.
The last significant change in circumstance for any entity on the second part of this list came in 2008. We've plenty of sources in this article and others establishing exactly the case you make for Taiwan for every entity you wish to remove. In every case we are talking about a well-established entity that is considered a state by a significant part of the diplomatic, legal or academic community - and not a state by another significant part of the diplomatic, legal or academic community.
And yes, when you seek to remove the entities whose support comes primarily from Russia, and retain the entities whose support comes from primarily from Western governments, then your proposal supports a Western POV in those disputes. I do not suggest that this is intentional - it does not matter. The result is the same. Kahastok talk 13:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Once again, we do not care about East, West, Russia, governments and personal POV. All we care about is WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc. This is reference work. My very best wishes (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Which is why the list is structured as it is. We do not invent splits that don't exist in WP:RS. We do not create rules that systematically favour the POV of one part of the world over another. And we do not overrule the views of the international diplomatic, legal and academic community based on our own personal perceptions of how things are. Which is why I reject your arguments. Kahastok talk 14:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I gave you a quotation from a scholarly source that concludes these specific territories did not achieve statehood. Any scholarly sources that conclude something opposite? I mean an assertive conclusion by a source that "it is not a state" (or "it is an independent state"), as oppose to simply documenting territorial disputes, which is an entirely different thing. My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Why am I expected to source the split that I don't want to put in the article? You've demonstrated nothing we did not already know - that the legtimacy of claimed states whose legitimacy is disputed is disputed. There are plenty of sources justifying the inclusion of all these entities in this article and in the list of sovereign states. Frankly, this looks like a big effort primarily aimed at removing an entity not on this list from a completely different article, and the place to do that is there, not here. Kahastok talk 14:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
This is strange. You do not see the difference between a territorial dispute (Taiwan and others) and the situation when certain territory is simply not an independent country according to 3rd party scholarly RS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
When you invent a distinction that is not found in the literature, it should not be particularly strange when people call you on it. All of these are territorial disputes. All of them are deemed illegitimate by at least some authorities. If you only choose to look, we have plenty of reliable sources in this article and the other that imply that these belong according to our standards. The only close calls are the Cook Islands and Niue, whose status is not disputed.
Another way of looking at it. You could not justify removing any of them, either to a separate list, or from the article, without changing the inclusion criteria. What specific, unambiguous and objective criteria are you proposing to use to justify defining a difference between Taiwan and Abkhazia, and what reliable sources are you proposing to base those criteria on? Kahastok talk 16:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Unlike you and some previous participants of these discussions, I am not proposing any arbitrary criteria (that would be a variety of WP:OR). I am simply using something that reliable sources tell about countries X, Y, Z (see quotation above). My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Make no mistake, there is nothing - at all - about your argument that is unique. So what you propose is that we abandon all notion of objectivity are replace it with whatever anyone fancies putting on the list. Or at best, you propose to remove all our standards and just say, what belongs is whatever anonymous Wikipedia user User:My very best wishes wants to put on the list.
In doing so you propose that we abandon core policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. There is no way I could ever even consider supporting that. Kahastok talk 17:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
They meet the inclusion criteria. Very clearly. Entirely unambiguously. The sources are right there in the article. There is no real room for debate on that. They meet the criteria.
You demonstrate that these states' legitimacy is disputed. Nobody denied that. That's why we separated out the disputed states. The only surprising thing here is that you think that disputed states should be removed from a list of disputed states because they are disputed.
We have to meet basic Wikipedia standards such as neutrality. We have to be objective. We cannot do that if we're arbitrarily removing entries from this (or any other) list that meet the standard that we have set. If you had a proposal to change the criteria while maintaining objectivity, that would be one thing. Nope, you're just proposing we just remove them. If we do that, we lose objectivity, we lose neutrality, we lose any sense of integrity of the list. Why on earth would that be acceptable? Kahastok talk 18:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, I just checked another good scholarly RS currently cited on the page (The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States By James Ker-Lindsay, Oxford University Press, pages 39-59) and it tells about seven specific states (same states as above + Kosovo) calling them "unrecognized" or the "territories" with "contested statehood" (no, Taiwan was not one of them!). This is really a good reason to include them separately or not include at all. My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
So, according to the book, these seven cases are known as "contested statehood", which are different from territorial disputes, such as those involving Taiwan. I think these seven states could be simply placed to a separate Table on this page called "Contested states". As follows from the book, Taiwan, Israel, etc. are not "contested states". My very best wishes (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
So what specific, unambiguous and objective criteria are you proposing to use to justify defining a difference between these seven and the remaining four? Just saying "contested states" won't fly. If you don't think Taiwan's status as an independent sovereign state is contested then you really need to read up more on Taiwan. And no, you're not allowed to pretend that governments don't have opinions on these things or that their opinions are somehow insignificant. The world doesn't work like that.
So far as I can tell you're still trying to argue that we should remove contested states from a list of contested states because they are contested. Literally the whole point of splitting the list between UN members and others is to separate out the contested states from the largely-uncontested ones. Kahastok talk 20:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
(a) Would you support splitting UN members and "others" into two separate Tables? (b) Our only criterion are sources. Which scholarly book tells that Taiwan is a "territory with contested statehood" or "not an independent state"? My very best wishes (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
A is no, while this was my position at the time of the previous debate, I would oppose that at this time in the interests of limiting the risk of creating another 1.7 megabytes of archives. Note that we get proposals on this all the time, but most of them are to integrate the two sections in the list, removing the distinction altogether.
On B, you are wrong. Per WP:LSC, we are required to have our own inclusion (or selection) criteria that should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. We currently get as close as we can to this standard by adopting the two competing theories of statehood (based on reliable sources) and requiring it be demonstrated that one standard is met (based on reliable sources). We are clear, we are unambiguous, and the selection criteria are based on reliable sources. If the criteria were to end except these ones which we don't fancy (as you propose), we lose objectivity, we become more ambiguous and we lose the standard based on reliable sources because we've just introduced an arbitrary bit.
So I repeat, what specific, unambiguous and objective criteria are you proposing to use to justify defining a difference between these seven and the remaining four? Kahastok talk 21:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
B. OK, but your criteria (whatever they are) are clearly not "supported by reliable sources". Please see quotation at the top of the thread: it tells these specific territories "are not independent states". My very best wishes (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The criteria - which are given in the article - are supported by reliable sources and the fact that these meet the criteria is supported by reliable sources. Yes, you've established that the question of whether these are states is contested. Everyone knows they're contested. That's the whole point of splitting the list. But they meet the criteria set down, so they are included. Kahastok talk 21:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No, the RS (two scholarly sources quoted above) do not support inclusion of 6 or 7 entities into the list. I do not really see WP:Consensus after looking at your links, but whatever it was, we must follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV directly and with regard to specific entities to be included to the list. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The sources demonstrate that they meet the criteria. You don't want to break WP:NPOV? You don't want to break WP:NOR? Then you cannot just remove entries that meet the criteria.
So, if you want them removed, what specific, unambiguous and objective criteria are you proposing to use to justify defining a difference between these seven and the remaining four? Fourth time of asking. Kahastok talk 17:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, some of these states do not even satisfy criteria currently used on the page. It tells: "The Convention defines the state as a person of international law if it "possess[es] the following qualifications: ... so long as it was not "obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure". OK, but these states were established by force, and that was apparently the reason they were not recognized by the international community. My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Establishment by force is entirely irrelevant, the United States was established through force. Throughout history, the vast majority of states were established through force. The current inclusion criteria have been established through an incredibly long series of discussions, RFCS, and dispute resolution actions. Every polity listed on this page satisfies the inclusion criteria implemented on this page through that process.XavierGreen (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It appears that "no establishment through force" is actually very important per Montevideo convention cited on the page. But the criteria for selection of items for this page are highly complex (require several paragraphs for description) and confusing: they tell the established through force is relevant, but you are telling it is not. These criteria are simply not "unambiguous and objective", as guidelines require. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
You're sythesising, interpreting a primary source. The rule is the declarative theory of statehood, based on reliable sources. And as you have demonstrated, the seven you dispute are all generally held to meet the declarative theory.
And yes, the criteria are objective and unambiguous. Are they perfect? No. Perfection here is probably impossible because the world is messy. But I note you have no proposal to improve them, only to undermine them - and in the process turn this article into a POV free-for-all. Kahastok talk 18:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that even such criteria may be useful as a rule of thumb. I simply do not think they should be used for a few specific entities where scholarly RS tell explicitly "this is not an independent state". We must have a consensus of RS to include an item to a list.My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Practically every list we have, no matter the subject, will have edge cases. Cases that meet the criteria laid down but aren't endorsed by every authority. That's why we're required to have criteria.
And when you have criteria you don't just ignore them if somebody finds an edge case they disagree with. Because the criteria define the contents of the list. If we need a consensus of RS to include an item, then the question we are asking of the RS - on every list we have - is whether they meet the criteria laid down by the article. Nothing else. And if the sources you point at demonstrate nothing else, they demonstrate that the seven you object to do meet the criteria and therefore must be included. Kahastok talk 19:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
How Northern Cyprus satisfy these criteria if they tell so long as it was not "obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure? It was established as a result of a military intervention by Turkey. My very best wishes (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Simple. Firstly, they are recognised by at least one UN member state (Turkey). Second, they consider themselves sovereign and (per your own source) are generally held to meet the declarative theory of statehood. Only one of those statements must be true for a state to meet the standard, but in the case of Northern Cyprus both are.
Note that the rules don't allow us to interpret the conditions of Montevideo ourselves as you are doing with this military force bit - that's WP:OR so for our purposes it's irrelevant. (It's also synthesis as the source doesn't say that a state is disqualified in this circumstance.) We require sources that actually tell us that the standard of the declarative theory is (often regarded as being) satisfied.
Now, that's a hard thing to source. There are several cases discussed recently that have not been included because we could not find a source saying that the standard of the declarative theory was met. But in this case we can source it, as you yourself have demonstrated. Kahastok talk 21:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am not convinced. First of all, I am simply looking at The Statesman's Yearbook - [4], (The Statesman's Yearbook continues to be the reference work of choice for accurate and reliable information on every country in the world), and it does not list such countries. Why should we list them here? Furthermore, it is precisely the purpose of selection criteria that anyone can easily use them for selection without getting into complicated issues, such as Montevideo convention. If someone without law degree would try to use these criteria, he would certainly did not include Northern Cyprus and a few other similar states based on the "using force" criterion. In addition, the territory was not recognized by UN or any significant number of states, and it looks pretty much as a puppet state of Turkey. Yes, it can be reasonably defined as a "state" or "de facto state", but we do have scholarly sources which tell this state is "not independent" or has "disputed statehood". But I think this discussion is no longer productive and we should stop. Thank you for discussion! My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
You've missed the point.
It makes zero difference if you think Northern Cyprus fits or not based on your understanding of Montevideo's criteria. It makes zero difference if I think Northern Cyprus fits or not based on your understanding of Montevideo's criteria. Your interpretation of your "using force" criterion makes not one iota of difference.
Because it's not for you, or me, to decide. It's for the sources to decide whether the requirements of the declarative theory are satistfied. If, according to the sources, they are often regarded as being satisfied in a particular case - that is, if we can source that, in so many words - that state goes in. No law degree required.
Though of course, it makes no difference in most cases (including this one) because they're recognised by a UN member state - again, generally pretty easy to prove. Kahastok talk 23:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I feel that I should weigh in on this for the benefit of preventing further argument...
@My very best wishes I believe what Kahastok has been trying to explain (but badly) is that you are coming to this discussion with 1 maybe 2 sources that state these entities are not "states". That is fine, fair enough. We accept that you have found sources that says these entities are not "states". However, Kahastok (and others) have seen another different source that says that they ARE states. Here is an example of one: [5]. However, I can understand that you might not be convinced by this source, as your sources says otherwise and this new source is coming from the government of the breakaway republic, so it is going to be biased, of course, naturally.
Well, what if I also give you a link from a different more "scholarly RS", as you keep stating: [6]. Here is a second "scholarly RS": [1] (Yes, unfortunately google has now blocked access to the relevant page # 53 of this reference, but I assure you, it clearly states most of these entities you are talking about are states). Just to balance things out, here is a source from a more biased reference from the other side, agreeing with the "scholarly RS" that you had provided that the breakaway region is not a state: [7].
Now what are we to do? We have a total of 6 sources, 3 saying that the entities are not "states" and 3 saying that they are. As honorable wikipedians we are not permitted to make the decision for ourselves weather it should be included or not. We must look at the sources. But they are telling us opposite things! So how is this dilemma resolved? Some rules should be followed. That is where the criteria come in. That is Kahastok's point. Because they are states considered to be "in dispute", meaning we have many sources of varying quality level that 'disagree' with each other, therefore we now, unfortunately, have to fall back on some criteria to resolve this. It has formerly been agreed here on this list/article to use the two general concepts of a "declared state" and a "constitutive state" to sort out the cases where the sources are "in dispute" (one source says it is independent, another says it is not). With this criteria, if a source says that it satisfies either definition, then we may be permitted to list it as a form of "state", even if there are lots of other sources that say it is not. Including the two that you have referenced.
I must assure you at this stage that we have not selected the definitions of a "declared state" and a "constitutive state" arbitrarily. It has been discussed at length, and agreed upon by most of the people commenting in this talk page. The reason why it was decided to use them was because they are the most commonly referenced 'definitions' of a state in the sourced references. Additionally, a "state" will still not be added to this list until it has been definitively shown to have been referenced by at least one RS as having met one of the two criteria. Only then is it permitted onto the list. All of the nine states with limited recognition listed in the "Other States" section of the list have already met these requirements. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see my reply below [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ker-Lindsay, James (2012). The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States. Oxford University Press. p. 53. In addition to the four cases of contested statehood described above, there are three other territories that have unilaterally declared independence and are generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria for statehood but have not been recognized by any states: Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland.

RfC: Including territories with contested statehood to list of sovereign states

Should this list include territories that are "not independent states" or have "contested statehood" according to reliable scholarly sources? My very best wishes (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Background information

Scope of the RfC

This RfC is about including Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Republic of Artsakh, Northern Cyprus and Republic of Crimea to lists from the Category:Lists of sovereign states in the 21st century and Category:Lists of sovereign states in the 20th century. These territories are currently included at the bottom of the Table on page List of sovereign states and colored yellow as states which were not accepted to UN and did not achieve significant international recognition. The "Republic of Crimea" is included in the List of sovereign states in the 2010s.

What sources tell

Here are a few examples how these territories are described in high quality/scholarly RS:

As Russia’s position with regard to Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia (and Armenia’s position with regard to Nagorno-Karabakh) is similar to that of Turkey with regard to the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, these recognitions are insufficient in order to indicate the statehood of these territories. Like the TRNC, these territories are not independent states. The situation of Crimea on March 17, 2014 was identical [88].
  • Academic book The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States By James Ker-Lindsay, Oxford University Press (pages 39-59) names the same states and two additional states (Kosovo and Somaliland) as "territories" with "contested statehood" and discusses why they did not (and should not) achieve international recognition.
  • There are also sources, such as this book which call these territories puppet states because they have been usually created through military intervention by another state who allegedly controls the "puppet state" (see also Puppet_state#Current). Some other RS call them unrecognized de facto states.

Reason for the RfC

I think we need a strong consensus of RS that an item belongs to a list, unless the inclusion is obvious. This is really important because by including something to a list we claim in WP voice that something belongs to a certain category as a matter of fact. By including someone into a "list of agents" we claim that someone was in fact a spy. By including Crimea or Northern Cyprus into the "List of sovereign states" we claim that they in fact were sovereign states, etc.

Current inclusion criteria for the list

The criteria are included on the page. They are rather complicated and include wording from the Montevideo Convention about nonrecognition of states created as a result of military aggression ("so long as it was not "obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure"). According to the publication in the Journal of International Law (see above), all "states" in this RfC have been created as a result of military aggression by another state. Should they be included even according to the currently existing criteria? My very best wishes (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Spain was created through military coercion, via the Reconquista, by your logic, Spain shouldn't be included on the page. Nor should Bosnia, Angola, or the vast majority of other states listed on this page. In fact, throughout history the vast majority of states have been created through military conquest and coercion.XavierGreen (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This RfC is only about several specific states because only they were described as "not independent states" in scholarly RS. However, if anyone thinks more countries should be excluded (per sources!), they are very welcome to raise the question about other countries on article talk page or submit another RfC. No one suggested excluding Spain of course. My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Quite frankly, you are suggesting that states like Spain be excluded, once can not simply pick and choose which inclusion criteria are applied to what polity, either they are applied to all of them or none of them. Otherwise the article blatantly would violate NPOV.XavierGreen (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Which sources tell that Spain is "not an independent state" or a territory with "disputed statehood"? As about Montevideo Convention, it obviously applies only to something that had happen after Montevideo Convention. I hope you are not going to discuss Genghis Khan? My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Bosnia was "created through military coercion" subsequent to the formation of the Republic of Abhkhazia as a defacto independent state, so your attempt at reductio ad absurdum is quite disingenuous.XavierGreen (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Which means the selection criteria are illogical and confusing. At the very least, they must be changed, not be kept. My very best wishes (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
That's a complete non sequitur.
No part of our selection criteria depends on whether or not a random Wikipedian thinks that a state is "created through military coercion". Your assertion to the contrary is a straw man. As I've pointed out already, the rule asks whether reliable sources hold that the standard of the declarative theory is satisfied, it does not ask Wikipedians to make the judgement themselves. Kahastok talk 22:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
According to guidelines, selection criteria ... should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.. These criteria are not unambiguous (please read numerous long discussions on this page), not objective as evident even from a few comments just above, and using them leads to contradictions with reliable sources: certain entities currently included in the list per these criteria are described in sources as "not independent states" (see at the top of the RfC). My very best wishes (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
For every list based on criteria such as described at WP:LSC, there will be reliable sources that disagree. That is the point of adopting criteria. There is nothing in WP:LSC that says that criteria are somehow invalid unless every source on the planet agrees with them.
The criteria we have are not perfect, but they're a whole lot more objective, less ambiguous and better based on reliable sources (in the article, based on the formal definitions of a state) than anything you have proposed. If you had a proposal to improve the criteria, that would be one thing. But you have repeatedly refused to make any such proposal. Kahastok talk 18:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with the sentiment that our inclusion criteria are not unambiguous, they are quite specific. They follow the declarative theory and the constitutive theory (with any noted exceptions having been clearly stated). It is not our fault that the declarative theory and the constitutive theory are themselves ambiguous. That is just a problem that everyone in the world has to face when dealing with the term "State", as there is really no better alternative to these two definitions for what a "State" is (at least as far as I can see). If you are able to find one from a RS (@My very best wishes), which is completely unambiguous, then I would strongly suggest that you propose it. Until we have a better definition the declarative theory and the constitutive theory will have to suffice, as we really have no better option than to use them. To try and create our own definition and then to use that as a guideline could be considered a form of WP:OR. - Wiz9999 (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Keep the current inclusion criteria - The current inclusion criteria was achieved through a consensus which was the result of a discussion and series of dispute resolution procedures which lasted literally years. Its worked well since it was implemented and there is no reason to change it now. States with limited recognition have always been included on this page, the current sortable table present on the page is the best tool to alleviate all pov concerns as was discussed previously on this talk page.XavierGreen (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Remove all contested territories & states. This article should be listing what its title suggests, sovereign states only. GoodDay (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The list scope are sovereign states in X century/decade. Not 'current sovereign states'. There are both previous and current states listed. If the scope of the lists was only current states, that argument might be accurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, we can keep the previous sovereign states too, then. GoodDay (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep the current inclusion criteria. I would perhaps support a sub-categeory for contested states. If a contested state actually controls territory, issues passports, arrests people, has courts of law (civil and criminal) - then they are in-effect acting as a state at least within said territory - even if contested outside of it. Statehood is not a matter of "majority international vote" - but rather realities on the ground (which international attitudes, should they move beyond attitudes to an actual act of war, might affect).Icewhiz (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep Unless a separate list is going to be created for contested states and *all* contested are removed, then without a drastic change to the scope of the lists this seems pointless. Its a small section of the list which is clearly marked and it is within the scope of the list. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

After looking at sources, it appears only these states were "contested" to such degree that some scholarly RS call then "not independent states" (as opposed to states that are simply involved in territorial disputes, like Tawain). Only Kosovo and Somaliland were also described as territories with "disputed statehood". Do you suggest to include them too? I do not mind because that is what RS tell. There was nothing else in a few sources I have checked. Please correct me if I am wrong, and something else needs to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep No new standard has been proposed, and changing these lists piecemeal without a clearly defined standard for inclusion will only lead to inconsistencies. For example, the Republic of California's brief history of independence was identical to that of the Republic of Crimea, but the proposed changes would leave California on the List_of_sovereign_states_in_1846 while removing Crimea from List of sovereign states in the 2010s. By their nature, these partially-recognized states have disputed sovereignty, so obviously sources will disagree over whether they are sovereign states. The current standards deal with this problem through consistent and neutral criteria. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep current criteria. Note that we already split up states depending on their level of acceptance by the international community. We do this by the split in the initial state of the list, through special columns in bright colours detailing the differences, through text descriptions giving full details. The genuine neutrality concerns that one might have here are addressed. And note that this is a hard-won consensus achieved after many years of detailed consideration by a significant number of editors.

And since all the entries in question are in the section intended to separate out disputed states, the OP is effectively proposing to remove disputed states from a list of disputed states because they are disputed.

In doing so the OP does not propose any new objective selection criteria (as required by WP:SAL). Rather, s/he proposes merely to remove particular entries that meet the selection criteria from the list. Such a proposal fundamentally undermines the integrity of the list, opening us up to huge WP:POV, WP:NOR and similar issues. If this state that meets the selection criteria can be removed, why not that one? Why can't this one, that doesn't meet the criteria, be added? The purpose of selection criteria is to give us an objective standard that reconciles contradictory sources. Allowing a single source to override them puts the cart before the horse. And as XavierGreen notes, an objective application of the principles proposed by the OP would have many unwanted consequences. Kahastok talk 19:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Exclude Crimea and possibly other disputed states. I initially participated in the NPOVN discussion, and posted the following there: I searched for ["constitutive theory" Crimea] and got the following:
  • “The more popular declaratory theory of recognition considers the effects of recognition to be merely declaratory: they evidence a pre-existing fact, namely that X satisfies the criteria of statehood, or is part of state Y. The constitutive theory deems a territory’s international status to be dependent upon the recognition of others” (emphasis mine). [10]
If Russia was the sole state to have recognized Crimea’s independence, it does not appear to meet the criteria for multiple states recognizing such. Here’s a blog post by a legal scholar that addresses the topic directly:
  • ”It seems unlikely that Crimea would be considered a state on March 16, regardless of the theory one employs.  At the time of the signing, Crimea had apparently been recognized only by Russia, precluding statehood under the constitutive theory. And having asserted independence from Ukraine for no more than three weeks prior to the agreement, Crimea had not developed the capacity to function as a state, precluding statehood under the declaratory theory.” (Emphasis mine) [11]
It looks like the criteria applied in the article (one-state recognition being sufficient for meeting the constitutive theory of statehood) is inadequate. If there are sources that discuss that Crimea meets sovereignty criteria under either theory, that may be helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, Crimea is not included in this list. There is a separate issue at List of sovereign states in the 2010s regarding whether Crimea should be included due to a brief period of claimed independence in March 2014. Kahastok talk 22:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep current criteria. Jan CZ (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep current inclusion criteria and do not remove any states - The RFC question is a straw man. The article already does not include territories that are indisputably "not independent states". The only open question is where to draw the boundary for inclusion for the contested states. IE how contested is too contested to be included? The varying degrees to which this statehood is accepted or not is documented in the article. The current WP:LSC defines a bright line for objectively assessing whether a territory has a reasonable case for being considered a sovereign state as per reliable sources. Any change to this would require an equally clear and objective LSC. As far as I can tell no such criteria is being proposed. Rather, a set of states are being arbitrarily excluded based on a subjective interpretation of sources. Since there seems to be some confusion about this below, I will explicitly add that states that indisputably and unambiguously meet the current inclusion criteria should not be arbitrarily removed as is being proposed. Inclusion should be based on the documented inclusion criteria. All states currently listed verifiably meet the current inclusion criteria, so should not be removed unless the inclusion criteria is changes such that they no longer satisfy the new inclusion criteria. TDL (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Exclude Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Republic of Artsakh, Northern Cyprus and Republic of Crimea from the lists. I have no opinion if the current selection criteria should be changed or "kept". There is a distinction in RS between merely a de facto state that was not recognized by the international community in general and well established sovereign/independent states which were recognized by a large number of countries. All entities that were explicitly described in RS as "not independent states" should be removed from the lists of sovereign states because it is disputable if they actually belong to these lists. They belong to lists of de facto states aka List of states with limited recognition. In addition, this RfC is not about changing or keeping the criteria of selection, but about removing several specific items that should not be here per RS and arguably also do not satisfy the existing criteria of selection. My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Every entry on this list clearly passes the criteria laid down by the article, i.e. recognition by a UN member, or reliable sources saying they meet the standard of the declarative theory. You have demonstrated the second point yourself for every entry you dispute, and everyone else seems to accept that the criteria are met.
You say: "this RfC is not about changing or keeping the criteria of selection, but about removing several specific items". Precisely. As I've noted several times before, if you were proposing a change to the criteria, to be applied objectively, that would be a different thing. You're not. You're proposing to remove these entries that pass the criteria because they don't pass some other subjective criteria of your own. Kahastok talk 22:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
When someone has clearly expressed an opinion in an RFC on the matter at hand, that opinion is not invalidated if it is not in the format that the RFC proposer prefers. An attempt to invalidate someone's comment on that basis would generally be considered wikilawyering. Kahastok talk 20:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the opinion to keep selection criteria is valid. However, one of the possible outcomes here could be keep current selection criteria, but remove all questionable entries indicated in the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you can pretend that any of the "Keep" votes thus far are anything but rejections of your proposal. After all, you are proposing to remove something. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
User:My very best wishes. I strongly object to your insistence on deleting and moving my comments without my permission. Per WP:TPO and WP:OWN, you are not allowed to do this. I note in particular your double standards in maintaining your own replies to comments in this section while attempting to prevent me from doing exactly the same thing. Kahastok talk 19:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The "Survey section exist for survey of opinions, not for long discussions. Other contributors did not object to my comments in Survey section. If they objected, I would remove my comments. I normally also do not object, excluding cases such as that one, when the discussion is not going to be helpful because this is a replay of something that has been discussed already on this talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Given this comment, I invite editors to check this edit summary. Apparently you are allowed to move other people's comments, but nobody else is allowed to move yours. In this situation I think I may just move this section back into its context. Kahastok talk 15:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep the current inclusion criteria - I can't think of anything to add or change. It seems to me that the entities that are difficult to categorize may warrant their own list. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep the current inclusion criteria
The OP has not proposed a suitable alternative replacement criteria that would then be needed to be written into the article/list in order to enact/enforce the proposed removal of the entities suggested. The 6 suggested entities are actually 5, as one of them (The Republic of Crimea) has not been included on this article anyway. The 5 entities suggested for removal seem to have been selected without much consideration for the current criteria, as I see no reason why these 5 should be singled out without taking into consideration the following other states with limited recognition: Somaliland, the Rebublic of China, Western Sahara, Kosovo, and Palestine. An argument has been made that the proposed 5 are puppet states, and thus should be excluded. However, similar arguments could be made for the 5 I have just listed (i.e. that Somaliland is effectively a puppet state of Ethiopia, the Rebublic of China and Kosovo are effectively puppet states of the USA and NATO, Western Sahara is a puppet state of Algeria, and Palestine is simply a puppet state of Saudi Arabia and several other Arab gulf states). As all 10 of these states with limited recognition have been shown to satisfy either the declarative theory or the constitutive theory, I see no reason why any should be removed from this list, as long as this is the governing doctrine that we use to select states for inclusion. Their position at the end of the table in the "Other States" section is appropriate, as, generally, UN membership has historically corresponded with the wide recognition and acceptance of a state. I feel that this list should not be used when deciding what entity constitutes a "state" as that is often discussed and decided upon in the very well maintained List of states with limited recognition. This list's primary function should be to simply reflect the UN members and the states that have been shown to have met either of the two theories in the limited recognition list. Effectively, only three other states do not fall into one of these two lists: Niue, the Cook Islands, and the Vatican (possibly also the Sovereign Military Order of Malta but that is a discussion for elsewhere). My opinion is that we not use this list to pick and choose states from the limited recognition list to include. We either include all of them, or none of them, as that is what readers will expect, and currently the criteria is defined in such a way as to include all of them. - Wiz9999 (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
(A note on the Republic of Crimea: I do not consider the situation of that "state" to have been representative of a typical state with limited recognition, as its "independence" was very short lived and then it was quickly annexed. It seems to have followed a situation that is more in line with any other regular territorial dispute, like that of the Golan Heights, Mayotte, or Kashmir. Its sequence of events seems to have followed a pattern more similar to that of Donetsk and Luhansk, although with more legitimacy on its side, as it had declared independence and was recognised by Russia.) - Wiz9999 (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The criteria can stay - they are not question of the RfC. I am simply telling that several specific items do not belong to the list - per sources, and they also arguably do not satisfy the current criteria. There is obviously a disagreement between sources if the entities are "independent states" But onnce again, we need a strong consensus of RS that an item belongs to a list, unless the inclusion is obvious. This is really important because by including something to a list we claim in WP voice that something belongs to a certain category as a matter of fact. By including someone into a "list of agents" we claim that someone was in fact a spy. By including Crimea or Northern Cyprus into the "List of sovereign states" we claim that they in fact were sovereign states, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The criteria are the question in the RFC, because if the criteria stay as they are then every entry that meets them must also stay. As per your own sources, that includes every entry you wish to remove. We cannot have criteria that say one thing and then put something completely different in the list. And nowhere do the criteria say except the ones that User:My very best wishes doesn't like very much - which so far as I can tell is what you are arguing for.
The fact that these are disputed is very clearly stated, by the split in the list, by the brightly-coloured columns, by the text explaining each situation in detail. If a reader comes a way with the impression that these claims are a matter of undisputed fact, they have not just not read the article, they haven't even looked at it. Kahastok talk 17:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: If you wish to exclude Abkhazia, for example, the only logically consistent argument you could make to that end would be to either a) change the criteria, or b) argue that they don't satisfy the current criteria. If you aren't arguing for a) then presumably you are arguing b)? It seems quite obvious that they do indeed satisfy the current criteria, that they are "recognised as a sovereign state by at least one UN member state". Which sources are you claiming support the assertion that Abkhazia is unrecognized? TDL (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
You didn't answer the question: Which sources are you claiming support the assertion that Abkhazia is unrecognized? If the answer is none, then you are asking for a change to the criteria to exclude Abkhazia. TDL (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This is "List of sovereign states". The sources tell these items are either not sovereign/independent states or it is disputable if they are independent states. Hence such items should not be included in the list. You ask irrelevant question. If we were talking about a "List of recognized states" or "List of states recognized by UN", your question would be relevant. My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
You said Abkhazia doesn't meet the current LSC. The LSC is recognition. Abkhazia is recognized. No sources say otherwise. Hence Abkhazia meets the current LSC and should be listed. Therefore, if you want to exclude Abkhazia then you need to change the inclusion criteria of this list. What new LSC are you proposing? TDL (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • First of all, yes, Abkhazia and Nothern Cyprus are recognized by a few countries, but they are not recognized by the entire international community (unlike Taiwan, for example). That's the point. Second, no, they do not satisfy the current selection criteria. According to these criteria, as quoted on the page, "The Convention defines the state as a person of international law if [a,b,c] so long as it was not "obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure". All there territories have been established by a military intervention of another, "patron" state and did not achieve actual independence - according to 1st source quoted at the top. My very best wishes (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
No, that is not the selection criteria of the list. For your benefit, I have copied it below.
"For the purposes of this list, included are all states that either:
(a) consider themselves sovereign (through a declaration of independence or some other means) and are often regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood, or
(b) are recognised as a sovereign state by at least one UN member state"
The list's selection criteria are quite clear. If a state is recognized, it is included. Abkhazia is recognized, hence it is included, baring a change to the inclusion criteria. TDL (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
No, you copied only a part of criteria. Here they are completely on the page. Indeed, these countries satisfy some criteria, but do not satisfy others (the part I underlined above). The criteria are equivocal, but this is not subject of the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Please read the inclusino criteria again. As explicitly stated in the criteria, a state only needs to satisfy (a) or (b) to be included. If you accept that it satisfies (b) then you agree it satisfies the current criteria. If you wish to change the or to an and, then that is a change to the criteria. TDL (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@TDL This was one of the things that I was alluding to for @My very best wishes in this edit [12] in the Puppet states section above. That we may include these disputed "states"/entities based on the the (a) OR (b) criteria, based on an (a) OR (b) source. It does not have to be unanimously agreed by all sources that X is a "state", or that X is a "disputed state" for us to include it, as long as we have a few sources that say it satisfies at least one of the criteria then it may be included. Even if sources exist that say it is not a state (which is the primary basis for the claim that the 5 states are proposed for removal). - Wiz9999 (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
It's been pointed out to you numerous times that you are attempting to change the selection criteria, and you continue to deny it. Then when someone presents evidence that very clearly shows this proposal disagrees with the current selection criteria, you just change the subject. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
No, I have explained the reasons for the RfC above. They are different. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Your explanation begins, "I think we need a strong consensus of RS that an item belongs to a list, unless the inclusion is obvious". There is strong consensus of RS that Abkhazia is recognised by at least one UN member state. You are arguing that black is white here. If the inclusion crtieria are not to be changed, Abkhazia must remain on the list.
Not on the same footing, though. We have the initial split of the list. We have the brightly coloured columns. We have the detailed explanation in text. Abkhazia is clearly treated very differently to the widely-recognised states. Kahastok talk 15:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
You would be absolutely right if that was a List of states recognized by at least one other state. Then, the list would not be misleading. The quoted sources deny or dispute the assertion that the items are "sovereign/independent" states. My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:LSC, WP:WIAFL et al, it is the selection criteria that define the scope of the list. The title is a description of the list, not the definition of the list. Otherwise the list of dinosaurs would have to be at List of genera that have ever been included in the superorder Dinosauria, excluding class Aves (birds, both living and those known only from fossils) and purely vernacular terms, but including genera that are now considered invalid, doubtful (nomen dubium), or were not formally published (nomen nudum), as well as junior synonyms of more established names, and genera that are no longer considered dinosaurs (a name so long that Mediawiki won't link to it).
Since you accept that Abkhazia meets the current selection criteria yet still say it should be removed, what change in selection criteria are you proposing? Kahastok talk 17:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The list of dinosaurs is a good examples. Here we have scholarly RS telling that several objects are simply not dinosaurs (independent/sovereign states). Actually, the discrepancies and changes in biological taxonomy are common. A solution? Use the most authoritative source(s) on Taxonomy (biology). Why can't we simply take a list from an authoritative book on the subject? That's why I mentioned The Statesman's Yearbook at the top of the RfC. But these "countries" simply were not included in the book. Why should we make original research here? And no, I do not accept that Abkhazia meets the current selection criteria. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
That text about the Montevideo Convention, "so long as it was not obtained by force" etc., explicitly only describes the declarative theory of statehood, so even if you're interpreting it as a part of the criteria (a questionable interpretation, as it seems to be an explanatory prelude to the actual criteria, which obviously are the lines immediately following "For the purposes of this list, included are all states that either:"), it has zero effect on the acceptance of a state that is recognized through the constitutive theory of statehood, like Abkhazia and all the other states you're questioning.
"A or B" means that in application of this standard, Abkhazia's acceptance under the declarative theory (A) is irrelevant, because it clearly satisfies the criteria for the constitutive theory (B). Do you understand now that your proposal to remove states that are accepted under the current criteria amounts to a change in criteria? After all the times this very simple point has been explained to you, I am beginning to think that your misunderstanding is bordering on denial. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Note that we can source that Abkhazia - along with all the others MVBW disputes - is generally held to meet the declarative theory to MVBW's own source. In the case of Abkhazia, the point is academic. Kahastok talk 19:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Please consider how this is done in the List of dinosaur genera. One must use authoritative RS that independently created such lists. If The Statesman's Yearbook was not good enough, please name other and presumably better RS which created lists of states, and just take it from there. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your repeated claim that Abkhazia and the rest aren't covered by the current criteria when they obvious are, and your claim that your proposal won't change the criteria, when it obviously will. It's hard to take your arguments seriously when their premise is so disconnected from reality. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Certainly the list of dinosaurs it is a good example - just not of what you suggest. Because it does not work as you imply it does. In fact, the nature of its criteria mean that it is certain that some entries fail your test: that some listed genera are things that "are simply not dinosaurs" according to RS.
I see you are now proposing to change the selection criteria. Question is now, if we adopt that proposal, how long before someone points out that Palestine is recognised as a state by more than 70% of all members of the UN (representing the vast majority of the world's population) and is recognised as a UN observer state, and yet doesn't make it on to our list?
By excluding Palestine we are explicitly taking the POV that it is not a state - or at least that the view that it is is in a small enough minority that it is not worth considering. Are you really prepared to suggest that it is neutral for us to claim that 136 UN member states, the Vatican and the UN General Assembly are all wrong or - even in combination - irrelevant? Neutrality doesn't allow us to simply reject such widely-held POVs. Kahastok talk 19:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
My argument is not about criteria for inclusion, but about several specific items not described as sovereign states in RS. For example, "Palestinian territories" are included in The Statesman's Yearbook 2014, page 695. Hence they should be included in the list. But Abkhazia is not included in the book. Well, if there are other good secondary RS which provide world wide lists of sovereign states, and they list Abkhazia as a "sovereign state", please bring these sources. But if you can't bring such sources, then including Abkhazia qualify as WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Your source does list the Palestinian Territories, sure. As part of Israel. The website is very clear on that. My point stands.
(It lists Abkhazia in the same way BTW.) Kahastok talk 21:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hence my argument about Abkhazia was correct. It was not listed as an independent state in the book. And BTW, no, Palestinian Territories are described in a separate chapter in the book, unlike Abkhazia. As about Palestinian Territories, this is a highly complicated question and not a subject of the RfC. If anyone thinks it also must be excluded from the list, that's fine, let them open another RfC, I do not mind. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Once again, you cannot have a list whose contents do not match its own selection criteria. You seem to think this is unimportant. Your proposed selection criteria at this stage exclude Palestine, therefore you are proposing to remove Palestine from the list. Whether you like it or not. And as I say, that's a major problem.
Oh and you're also proposing we wait until a new book comes out before we add anything to this list, thereby entirely negating our advantage of being an online encyclopaedia. If Scotland becomes independent, and everyone in the world recognises it, it could be ten years before it we accept it on this list by your proposal. Kahastok talk 18:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep the current inclusion criteria Given that no specific alteration of the criteria is proposed, that is the only answer one can give. As TDL says "The current WP:LSC defines a bright line for objectively assessing whether a territory has a reasonable case for being considered a sovereign state as per reliable sources". The RfC seems a bit muddled, because it appears to be arguing that 5 (6?) 'states' fail the criteria in some sense - though little specific info exists as to why. Each of those contested 'states' would probably need to be a separate RfC. As a general proposition, somewhere between "universally recognised" and "wholly unrecognised" are many 'states' whose exclusion would diminish the value of the article. We aren't 'recognising' entities by including, simply recording the extent to which they 'exist' and are recognised by others. Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of sovereign states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

checkY Checked references, bot corrected broken links nominally. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of sovereign states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

checkY Checked references, bot corrected broken links. Found one additional broken link in the Somaliland section. Corrected this & updated all references in Somaliland section. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for edit

So the Gambia just rejoined the Commonwealth of Nations. Can someone add that? 2600:8800:5A80:1394:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Is the Gambia Commonwealth Realm (with Elizabeth II as the head of state), or just a member of the Commonwealth of Nations? It seems that the former is noted in this list, but not the latter - there are 53 members of the Commonwealth of Nations, but only those that have Elizabeth II as the head of state have a note. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Czechia

Term is already included in this article as a footnote. Continued discussion on this issue is violating WP:CANVASING. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2018 (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.

Czechia is the official English short form name for the Czech Republic (like it or not) it should be treated the same as other countries and listed instead of some note about how it is "encourage by the Czech govt." you are showing your bias wikipedia editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Perhaps take it up at Talk:Czech Republic in April. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Why nope and why on another page? this page has a column called short form and formal names and Czechia is it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Not looking for special treatment just equal treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with @power~enwiki, this seems to be related to a lengthy debate that is ongoing in the Talk:Czech Republic article. No changes should be made here, as there are currently protections in place on that article that prohibit any changes to the name/title of "Czech Republic" taking place before 26 March 2018. This article should also reflect this view, as 'Czech Republic' is the primary article used when referring to all things 'Czech'. Any changes made to the title of that article in future will, I'm sure, be precipitated onto this one as well. The wikipedian community will decide in the 'Czech Republic' article weather or not it is to accept this name as the primary way of referring to the Czech nation. However, I must admit to you, this is the very first time that I have ever heard the word "Czechia". I can confirm that, as an English language speaker, with English as my first language, I have always referred to this nation as "Czech Republic" and "Czechoslovakia" before that, when it was previously federated with the Slovak Republic. I will express my views on this matter for others in Talk:Czech Republic as appropriate. - Wiz9999 (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not talking about changing the title of the main article (Czech Republic). I am talking about listing the English short form name for this country the same way as the rest of the countries on this table. If you want to list it like Czechia Czech Republic fine, but to just footnote the official English short form name is being bias in my view. A few years ago had someone tried to add it to this page or a page like this the response would have been "the CR does not have an official English short form name" so we aren't going to add it....now they got one but the response becomes "well it not well known", so what...it is the name the country adopted for the English short form. Column Short and formal names on THIS article Czechia Czech Republic not Czech Republic

"Czechia" is not more common than "Czech Republic" and it is nowhere near an "official English short form" in terms of common usage. It should not be used here, especially if the issue is unresolved at Czech Republic. --Taivo (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but if Czechia is significant enough to be in the lede of Czech Republic then it is significant enough to appear on this page. The issue IS resolved, it was agreed last year that the name of Czech Republic would not change and Czechia would be in the lede. Whilst the usage of Czechia is not high, it is still significant enough for information about it to be present on this page. A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
To re-iterate what I said on the Talk:Czech Republic article in this edit[13], "Czechia" is not really a "short form name" as it stands, since it is used too rarely in English. Despite what the Czech government "wants" it to be. Such short form names are normally more common than their official "long form" counterparts, but this is definitely not the case in the case of the Czech Republic. Anyway, it does not matter, because a decision on weather to include "Czechia" here will depend on what happens on the Talk:Czech Republic article after 26 March 2018. - Wiz9999 (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The Czech Republic registered its short-form name, Czechia, on July 5, 2016. It is spreading nicely. I am not even sure why people are arguing. The Czech people have every right to choose their own official short name. Just as the people of Suomi chose Finland. Shouldn't Wikipedia be more concerned with accuracy than with popularity? Wikipedia shouldn't respond to popularity, it should drive the popularity of facts. Czechia is the official English short name of The Czech Republic. [14] Google Maps updated last year. Why is Wikipedia slower? 166.67.66.242 (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No one is disputing their right to choose their official short name. We are just pointing out that that choice is irrelevant to our policies and usage. And did the people of Finland actually choose to be called that in preference to Suomi, or did they simply accept that that is what English usage already called their country? And "accuracy" has many meanings. Using the names that are used in general English discourse is one form of accuracy. --Khajidha (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Noting that this message breaks WP:CANVASS because it is biased.

The standard here - let's be absolutely clear on this - is not the offical short form approved by the government of the country in question. It is the short form of the country name according to common English-language usage, i.e. the name that is most useful to readers. For more than one country on this list we use a name that is actively rejected by the government of the country in question.

There is little value in debating the question of common usage on every article individually. Better to decide it once at the article talk page and then follow that usage elsewhere. The place to get this changed is through WP:RM at Talk:Czech Republic - but if you file it now it'll be speedy-closed because they've had so many similar discussions recently and it was disrupting the page without giving any benefit. Kahastok talk 17:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the short form name of the Czech Republic that is in most common English-language usage is Czechia. If there was a more common short name then it would obviously make sense to use that instead. BUT the fact is that Czechia IS the most common short name in usage even though it is much less used than Czech Republic. So your argument for not including Czechia at all and having a blank space instead doesn't really make sense.A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Then the phrase "short form" should not be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
It is no longer being used. I have replaced "short-form name" with just "short name" in the note for czech republic. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Not much of a difference IMO a better one would be Wikipedia approved short name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC) This is why I get the impression there are people (not everyone) who just don't want the word Czechia to be anywhere on wikipedia instead just adding the official short name of the country.......people would rather just adjust the title as if that makes the name issue go away.

I feel quite sorry for the poor Wikipedia user that stumbles upon this page to look up the short and long form names of the Czech Republic after seeing Czechia on google maps (and in many other places!). Oh dear! Seems like Wikipedia doesn't contain all knowledge after all! A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Your reader will actually most likely search for Czechia, and will thus be redirected to Czech Republic which has an explanation and link to a fuller article. If they search this article they will find "Czech Republic" and see the footnote explaining the situation.
As we told the IP, if you want to see this changed, open an WP:RM at Talk:Czech Republic. If that page is moved, chances are this one will follow. But note that this question was asked so repititiously in the past that there is currently a moritorium on such proposals. Any new RM before the moritorium runs out will likely be speedy closed. Kahastok talk 23:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm frustrated, how editors (with little knowledge of the short form of name) prohibit to show to the readers short name of my country. I can show you hundreds and hundreds of examples of common English-language usage of Czechia. Czechia IS a commonly used short form of name of the Czech Republic.

The name of the article about Czechia is one thing. But in this article List of sovereign states both names of countries are included if exist. So I see no reason why in the case of the Czech Republic one of the two names kept secret from readers. Jan CZ (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

First, it's not "kept secret". There's a footnote readers can mouse over that will tell them that Czechia is an alternate name. Second, for the countries with two names listed, there is the common name, and the official name. As determined by consensus at the Czech Republic page, the commonly used English name and the official English name are both "Czech Republic". Thus it would be consistent to treat Czech Republic the same as other countries, like Canada, where the common name is the same as the official name. Please don't try to continue here the same endless debate over whether Czechia is the common name. It has been settled (for now) elsewhere, and on that issue this page should take its lead from that one. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
"I can show you hundreds and hundreds of examples of common English-language usage of Czechia." I doubt it. At least not without just totally relying on Prague Daily Monitor, Radio Prague, and Belarus Times. In other words, it's being used in "English-as-a-foreign-language-media" but not in the "English-as-primary-language-media". --Khajidha (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Then you should not use the word Short in the column — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC) You call it "common"name or "Wikipedia approved short name".

Short name is official term from UN database, value is not copied from UN database, so

  • 1) rename column
  • 2) add note explaining that it is not really that official short name from database but some kind of most common name, source: wikipedia editors
  • 3) include Czechia (you go into extreme troubles to make excuses why it cannot be included anyway)
  • 4) do nothing, who cares if short name means something different than expected, right

Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the notion that "short name" is from the official UN database. It's not. As with every other name in Wikipedia that isn't labelled "official" it is the English WP:COMMONNAME, not what nationalists want and love. I've spent years at Kiev and Macedonia, so that issue of WP:COMMONNAME is a key one that "official anything" warriors need to learn. --Taivo (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
So 4) it is, as expected :( No will to clarification, nothing. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with nationalists. The name is internationally recognized, it's used in US government databases for heavens sake! The only controversy I see is with stubborn Wikipedia editors.A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Of course not. Not one reader in a hundred thousand is going to look at the words "short name" in the title and assume that this necesssarily means that the column is populated from a database that isn't even mentioned in the article and that most of them will have never heard of. You're effectively trying to stop an English-language encyclopædia from writing in English. Kahastok talk 18:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, similar list List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe DOES have such sources listed, so it WILL be more readers than your pompous statements 1/100000. Sources attached = follow sources = do not redefine terms used in sources!!!! Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is the final arbiter for such things as "short name" in Wikipedia, not official lists. If we want an entry for "UN-sanctioned short name" then it should be debated and if a consensus is reached it can be added. But "Short name" without further modifier is WP:COMMONNAME and "Czechia" loses in that regard. --Taivo (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, what do we need sources to tell us what "short name" means, we on wikipedia have our own rule, which is applied and that's the end of it, no sources will break our internal terminology. We will even add links to the sources that we chose to ignore or to twist. Pha. Czechia is not common name, I agree from beginning! Czechia is short name though and no redefinition of terms or badly cited sources break that. In the article column name was changed - as I suggested in 1). I guess I should be impressed that at least the minimal possible compromise was made. Suggestion 3) was too difficult for you, I know. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Your suggestion that an article on the English Wikipedia should not be allowed to use English words in their normal English meaning is patently absurd, and your repeating it will not make it less absurd. Kahastok talk 21:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
You are twisting not only sources but my sentences too :) I say you have every right to reformulate sentences from sources, use more known words and names in such sentences etc. BUT you cannot do it with data like these - database table output / norms / standards. If article contains in the column not "database" output but some kind of Wikipedia agreement, it should be named accordingly and not to use THE VERY same name of column as in that cited database OMG. I am not changing your English language, I am saying: Use your English terms from your cited sources, don't confuse readers with redefined meaning. Bibliography paragraph is in this article for a reason - source "database-like" data!, not to be filtered because you don't find them known enough. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The database in question is not cited anywhere in this article. My point above stands. Kahastok talk 22:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
And you are absolutely right, bibliography section uses dated versions of documents (2010) so surprise surprise, no Czechia there :) CIA calls it "conventional short form", publications.europa.eu calls it "short name", Department of Public Information, Cartographic Section, United Nations calls it "short form", left ot UNGEGN calls it "Short name". Short short short. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Also don't get me wrong, I think it is absolutely OK that the list contains common names too. "United States", "United Kingdom", "South Korea", "Ivory Coast" - none of these are UN-short names. That was my suggestion #2 - short names[note] - short names are not necessarily UN official, but at least one of these respected sources (CIA, ISO, something) contains them and: are quite well-known (to be able to leave Czechia from that list ;)). Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Well now that the column name has been changed to "common name" it no longer necessitates the inclusion of Czechia so this debate has become rather pointless. However, now all the sources are inappropriate as they point to official databases rather than statistics of usage in the English language. The problem is, what decides that a name is common enough if not the databases, whose up to date versions include Czechia? Surely not Wikipedia editors themselves? You need to cite sources to claim that. Of course such sources may exist but they are not listed as of now! A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep anything to do avoid using Czechia (or so it seems) are you all sure all the other are "common names"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
If you are able to find more common Common Names for the other 205 countries included in the article then please, feel free to suggest their use instead of the names that the the table currently lists. I doubt that you will find a single one, this table has undergone YEARS of scrutiny. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Even if I did they wounldn't be added because someone would probably say well "this is the official one", the goal posts always move on this issue. A few years ago the reason why Czechia would not have been included would have been "it is not official" "their govt doesn't use it" and "google hits don't mean anything". Like I have written before it sure seems like some people on wikipedia really try hard to keep it the name off wikipedia, maybe there people who try to push the use of the name too hard but there are also people who push to block its use as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Formal name are pretty easy and most of cited sources should match. Short (informal) name is not included in this article, it may differ source by source (ISO, UN, CIA, maps...). Common names are usually inspired by short names, so common=short(at least from one source UN/ISO/CIA/maps...) pretty often. "Most common short name" - not really a thing for wikipedia unless it matches common name. So Czechia as "most common short(er) alternative for Czech Republic" got only a note (well at least a note, it was deleted too). Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
And all of this demonstrates why we gave you the answer we gave you at the beginning. There is zero value in debating the question of common usage on every article that mentions the country individually. Better to decide it once at the article talk page and then respect that decision elsewhere. So if you want us to start using "Czechia" the way to do it is through WP:RM at Talk:Czech Republic. Kahastok talk 18:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

To repeat: Wikipedia uses the WP:COMMONNAME, not the official name. When a place officially changes names, we wait for the usage to change. Thus Barrow, Alaska and Bangalore. Usage is still almost entirely at Czech Republic; note this 2016 Guardian (UK) article), the Olympic site, and the official government and tourism sites. As far as this article goes, the footnote is more than sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Guardian article is a nonsence, agreed on Czech Republic talk page - 3 months after Czechia made official such definitive statements after asking few people on Prague square. Government page will NEVER change since it is official name, like [15] so bad example there. Home tourism logo - well it is a logo (money spent, so ...) but you can see article with "Czechia" on main page!! You would not care if all of these use Czechia so do not try to act that they matter ;) You don't care about "Czech government made it offcial", you don't care about Czechs using it in articles written in English. Apart from these not-so-great examples of yours, I agree that it is still quite rare, and Google maps are probably the best success of Czechia so far. Not being used in sports is a huge argument against Czechia, I acknowledge it without hesitation. Common names are indeed best to discuss on their respective articles, what was solved here in past days - this article showed common names under term "short name", now it is more accurate. Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I don't think that is the common name at all at least not in the US. I hear way more Britain or Great Britain or even England, yes I know that is wrong but I think that is way more common than United Kingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course it is common name, it was surely solved ages ago on United Kingdom talk page.Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
See WP:POINT. Kahastok talk 18:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
see "If you are able to find more common Common Names for the other 205 countries included in the article then please, feel free to suggest their use instead of the names that the the table currently lists. I doubt that you will find a single one, this table has undergone YEARS of scrutiny. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC) " I was thinking about it and United Kingdom doesn't seem all that common to me.....so I brought it here to the talk page.......like we are suppose to. I didn't try to change it on my own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk)
I agree with you that England and Britain/Great Britain are WAY more commonly used than "United Kingdom". Also, I agree that, as you had said:
England ≠ United Kingdom
However, what you have not realised in your suggestion above is that:
Great Britain ≠ United Kingdom
Britain ≠ United Kingdom
This means that calling the "United Kingdom" any of these names is actually incorrect. Many people from outside the UK often make this mistake. This article explains the situation quite nicely; Terminology of the British Isles. Calling the "United Kingdom" "England" is actually calling the whole country just its largest and most populated subdivision, the subdivision of England (This is known as an internal "country", yes, the UK's politics are complicated). A similar problem comes when saying "Britain"/"Great Britain" (The two mean the same thing, geographically), this is equivalent to the island of Great Britain (England + Scotland + Wales) and not the state. As, the "United Kingdom" is more than just the island of "Great Britain", it includes Northern Island. So the terms are not equivalent. It would be like calling "Spain" as "Castile", as that is just the largest geographical part of the country, and the state that "Spain" had developed from originally. It would be like calling the "Czech Republic" as "Bohemia", as that is just the largest geographical part of the country and the part that is the most populated. It is not the country itself (as I am sure you are aware of based on your discussions in the above section). The "United Kingdom" is the best common name that we have for this state, as the only other option that realistically could be used is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
In my part of the US, I most often hear UK (the initials). But we generally avoid initials for titles. --Khajidha (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the WP:POINT put on this section as this is a separate topic that merits its own discussion. However, I will point out to our IP friend here that he/she is still violating WP:CANVASING. To @Kahastok I will note this section in: WP:POINT#Important note. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Wiz9999: I thought about removing the POINT archive, as it probably was unnecessarily aggressive, but I decided to leave it in place in the end. This section is WP:POINTy because it seems fairly clear that its purpose has nothing to do with the United Kingdom, and everything to do with trying to assert a precedence for the Czechia debate mentioned above. As such, it disrupts the encyclopedia because we're wasting time talking about the United Kingdom when nobody seriously thinks there should be any other title in that row.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The same could be said for both of these two discussion sections (Czechia and United Kingdom). It is clear that the purpose of both of these sections is to push some adjenda of getting "Czechia" onto as many places as possible in EN Wikipedia when everyone involved is in agreement that the term is essentially not used in common spoken English lexicon currently. The whole debate has the unmistakable mark of WP:CANVASING, and as far as I am concerned should be discontinued. As the term is already on this page in a footnote, the appropriate location for the debate of the usage of this word is on this page: Name of the Czech Republic, and possibly this page: Czech Republic. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2018 (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.

The Bahamas

The common and constitutionally official name of this place is "The Bahamas". As an English speaking country, translation issues don't arise. Therefore, it is incorrect to put the name under "B", it should be under "T", as is the current situation. Because the name is treated as one, it is also incorrect to get around this dilemma by putting the definite article after the main word. I suggest moving the country down to the "T" section. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

While I am not necessarily opposed to such a change (after all, the main article is "The Bahamas"), I will point out that we effectively have to do this for both the Democratic Republic of THE Congo and the Republic of THE Congo. Though, I think such a change, if implemented, would mean making a redirecting line, as is done with "North Korea" and "South Korea", since people would 'expect' to see "Bahamas" under 'B'.
Note: "The Gambia" is in the exact same lexiconal situation as the Bahamas. Any change to the position of one should be done to both of them. - Wiz9999 (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. Listing it under B is not incorrect. See here for a discussion. Reliable sources usually list it under B: [16][17][18][19][20][21]. We should follow that, not deviate because of some perceived "incorrectness". TDL (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Country names are never alphabetized anywhere under "the" (except sometimes in the case of Macedonia for extraordinary reasons). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of what it is officially called, putting it under T is not a good idea, for the reasons pointed out already, and because most people will think of it as the Bahamas, obviously looking under B, not under T. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

On further reflection, I think it should be under "B" simply because that is common sense and practical. Putting it under "T" would be unnecessarily pedantic. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I will point out that in http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-5000500.htm (from the above RS's) "The Gambia" is listed under "The Gambia", while under "Gambia" it instructs the reader to go to "The Gambia" instead. Also interestingly, "The Bahamas" is listed solely under "Bahamas" an no entry exists for "The Bahamas". Perhaps we should add two redirecting lines to the list (as per the line that reads; "Republic of the Congo" → "Congo, Republic of the"), one that says "The Bahamas" and directs the reader to → "Bahamas, The", and one that says "The Gambia" and directs the reader to → "Gambia, The".
In this way we will have covered all of the bases, and there should be no confusion as to the listing position of the two entries, as both of them will still be in compliance with the following common practice; Alphabetical order#The and other common words. Please state here if you disagree with what I have proposed. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Example of my proposal:
The Bahamas → Bahamas, The
The Gambia → Gambia, The

- Wiz9999 (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: These will be the only two cases where it would be permitted for just "The". (I think we all don't want to see the list filled with extra nonsense like "The United States", "The Vatican", and "The Switzerland", etc.) - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The BBC says: ...according to several authoritative sources, such as the CIA World Factbook, the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World and the US Department of State, only two countries, The Bahamas and The Gambia, should officially be referred to with [The]...[22] Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, after thinking about it for a bit I realised that "The Bahamas" and "The Gambia" are the only two states that do not have an alternate name that can be used without using a definite article of "The". This is probably the reason why the stated sources in the BBC article above state that this is the case for these two states and no others. For example, the sentences below clarify what I am saying:
If I say; "I'm returning from my trip to THE United States." I could replace this with; "I'm returning from my trip to America".
If I say; "I'm returning from my trip to THE United Kingdom." I could replace this with; "I'm returning from my trip to Great Britain" (or "I'm returning from my trip to Great Britain and Northern Ireland" if I really want to be pedantic).
If I say; "I'm returning from my trip to THE Vatican." I could replace this with; "I'm returning from my trip to Vatican City".
If I say; "I'm returning from my trip to THE Netherlands." I could replace this with; "I'm returning from my trip to Holland".
etc.
Such replacements are not possible for the Bahamas or the Gambia. - Wiz9999 (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that the name with the article is fixed according to a very strong source - a written constution - so normal rules of grammar about the article do not apply. You cannot write "Bahamas, The" any more that you can write "Coast, Ivory" or "Africa, South" You cannot even write "the Bahamas" in the middle of a sentence - it must be "The Bahamas". There is not even a common name option because everyone uses the article in common speach. These names are therefore different from places like the Netherlands or the United Kingdom, where the article is inserted for different reasons, and so at times can be dropped. It is perfectly acceptable (and correct) to put, in a list of countries, UK under 'U'. I suggest a way around this is to put The Bahamas under 'B' but write it as The Bahamas, not as Bahamas, The. A side note is all that is needed. It might look a little odd, but pretty obvious to most people why it is done that way. Two points of interest are that The Hague is also a fixed name within the Netherlands that is not fixed. In a phone directory, companies with a name starting with an article are listed under 'A' or 'T', which backs up my original idea of putting The Bahamas under T. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a comment: it is actually acceptable to use "the Bahamas" and "the Gambia" in the middle of a sentence, with uncapitalised articles – just look at the long names of the aforementioned countries as listed in this article ("Commonwealth of the Bahamas", "Republic of the Gambia"). Article names on Wikipedia regarding these two countries don't normally capitalise the article either (e.g. Geography of the Bahamas is treated the same as Geography of the Philippines, even though one has the article in the actual name of the country). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 09:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean use WP as a reliable sourse? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Officially, it is "Republic of The Gambia"[23] and "Commonwealth of The Bahamas"[24] both with capitalized [The]. Also Commonwealth of The Bahamas and Commonwealth of the Bahamas are both redirects to The Bahamas. And Republic of The Gambia and Republic of the Gambia are redirects to The Gambia. Covering both capitalized and non-capitalized. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

In that case, then, it may be worth changing the long names of these two countries in the article as well (and perhaps elsewhere), unless there's any opposition to this. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 10:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I have already changed the capitalization in this article using the references from above. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Itis listed under "B" at the UN.[25] Presumably that's the most common usage and acceptable for the country. Note that the U.S. is listed under "U" not "T." Furthermore, there are lots of countries where an abbreviation of their name is normally use, such as the Commonwealth of Australia. TFD (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: But what do you think about the idea of Wiz9999 to add redirects to the table? because as noted by the BBC, CIA World Factbook, the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World and the US Department of State. The Gambia and The Bahamas are the only two countries that have the definitive [The] as part of the countries actual name, for example the United States is officially "United States of America" and the does not form part of its name, but is often used for grammatical reasons. 16:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The CIA Factbook lists the country as "Bahamas, The." It is listed under B, not T. Certainly when the country is mentioned in text, "the" should be used. But there is no reason to list the country under T. TFD (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think what is happening is that country lists nearly always use the common name. That allows Belgium, not Kingdom of Belgium, etc. If the common name has an article, like the Netherlands, that article can be dropped or moved in a list, as is normal grammatical practice. If the common name for 'The Bahamas' is 'the Bahamas' then it can be written in a list as 'Bahamas, the' or just 'Bahamas', but if done that way, not as 'Bahamas, The' because that is not grammatically/common name correct. What makes the common name the Bahamas and not The-Bahamas is down to opinion. I think most people would think the 'the' was not directly connected to 'Bahamas', unlike, say, The Hague, which is regarded in common use as one unit [26], meaning it is put under T not H in a list of cities. That would mean that in our list here it should be written as 'Bahamas, the', or just 'Bahamas' (as the common name), with a side note referring to the official name being 'The Bahamas'. So, there would never be a problem with any place name in any place name list, as long as list used the common name. If the list was of official names, that would be different but quite obvious in context. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

We would list it as "Bahamas, The" as in the CIA Factbook or the Commonwealth website,[27] because the first word in a sentence is always capitalized and that extends to lists. TFD (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I think you draw a distinction that does not exist. When you find alphabetical lists of anything where some entries begin with an article (the/a/an), it is very common to ignore the article when choosing alphabetical order. That applies even if the article is always capitalised as it is perceived as part of the name.
For example, in a record store, would you look for The Who under T or W? If the answer is T, chances are you won't find anything. Go to that article and check the categories - the article is categorised as "Who, The" - but it is difficult to imaging anyone vaguely knowledgeable perceiving that band's name as "Who" without "The". The same applies here.
The article you point to makes other mistakes in its alphabetical order. 's-Hertogenbosch is placed between Boxtel and Eindhoven. Geldrop comes after Woudrichem. I would not regard it as in any way definitive. Kahastok talk 18:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
To add: in this case I would change the display names to "The Bahamas" and "The Gambia" but retain the same sort ordering as at present. The table already uses advanced sorting techniques to relegate the column headings and redirects to the end when sorting by name - this is no different. And we can avoid changing the default order by simply not changing the default order. Kahastok talk 18:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you have missed my point. Officially, The-Bahamas does not have an article, it's two word name should be seen as one, compound noun. You are referring to lists of common names. The Netherlands, for example, in an official name list, would drop the article, or place it second, because it is not part of the official name. Your reference to the record shop and The Who is like using an unreliable source. Better is to use the phone directory, where company names that have an article in their structure do not drop it and are registered under T of A.

I said, on reflection, that The Bahamas should be under B in our list, but only if the common name, the Bahamas (article + noun), is used, and not the official name, The-Baharmas (one compound noun). If this is done the article can be put second, or dropped. If it is placed second, I can see that it can also be capitalised, but only because in a list of common names it would have a capital (like the first word in any stepped list). Used as a common name in the middle of a sentence it would not. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as there has not really been any actual objections to my proposal above, I am implementing the proposal into the article. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

A google search for "bahamas the"[28] showed it listed as "Bahamas, The" in the CIA Factbook,[29] thecommonwealth.org,[30] Ducksters,[31] the Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online[32] and the World Bank.[33] I couldn't find any examples in the first pages of the enquiry for "Bahamas, the." While we can argue over which is grammatically correct, it is common usage which we should follow. Or we can omit the definite article as many lists do. TFD (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we are agreeing, not disagreeing. I did try to say above that used in isolation or in a list it should be Bahamas, The (not 'the'). Others might not agree with my reasoning for saying that but the end result is the same. I probably have not expressed myself as well as I should have though. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2018

North Korea Is unrecognized by both South Korea and Japan Due to Basic treat between south korea and japan 202.21.99.178 (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Question: That info is already in the article, what else you want? –Ammarpad (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

West Papua

With the recognition of West Papua's sovereignty from Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands, shouldn't West Papua be included under the same criteria for Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Somaliland, Taiwan, Palestine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.115.232 (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Previous time this came up we found that the governments in question supported West Papuan independence, but did not recognise that any West Papuan state already exists. Do you have any sources? Kahastok talk 17:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

eSwatini?

I'd rather wait and see what happens in official English usage as per the talk going on in the Swaziland page, but this is a topic that has suddenly come up. Do we change its name on Wikipedia or no? Will this become another country with two names, e.g. Burma and Myanmar? Dreigorich (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's defer to the Swaziland page. Outback the koala (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. No point in discussing this separately in each place. Kahastok talk 21:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, this will be decided on the Swaziland page - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2018

Hello, my username is RainerIVEdwardIX. I would like to edit this beautifully written article.

I am the grandson of abdicated King, King Edward VIII. I have recently written to the United Nations and ISO to recognized my country and currency, the Einegroße Sovereign.

Einegroße is a new principality with at this stage only me in it.

I was born in Sydney as was my father. He is 73 and was born in 1944. His parents are King Edward VIII and Grace Kelly. It turns out that the real wife of King Edward VIII during the time of abdication was Grace Kelly, but a double was used to protect her.

King Edward VIII was also formative in assisting the foundation of the League of Nations, whilst Grace Kelly continued for a while, her successful career as a movie actress and Hollywood film star.

The couple married at the time of the abdication, privately.

King Edward VIII continued to work for the British High Commission in Australia.

King Benjamin, of Einegroße was born in Sydney in 1976. He is the Chief of the House of Windsor (distinct from the Windsor Mountbatten's). King Benjamin has sought to reclaim the British throne, arguing to the British government that King Geroge VI and the Queen were imposters with no family relationship to the Windsors including King Edward VIII, and that the His Majesty's Abdication 1937 Act was fraudulent. RainerIVEdwardIX (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Micronations are not within the scope of this article. What you're describing is a micronation claim, which would go in a different article. Astrofreak92 (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2018

In australia, add Northern Territoty to list of teritorys as is not technicly a state inside australia as joined as a coalition. JBear-GT (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I will point out that in the article; States and territories of Australia, it is stated that the northern territory is one of the "internal territories" of Australia, and not one of the "external territories" of Australia. As is listed in this article, all the "external territories" of Australia have clearly already been noted. It would be a lot of administration to list every type of first order administrative division of a country within this article, thus that process is intentionally left out of the scope of the article. Notable autonomous subdivisions of a state (such as Australia's "external territories", or PRC China's SARs) are listed, mostly out of convenience for the editor and for the reader. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2018

In the Montenegro section, can you add that Montenegro is "Not recognized by 13 countries: the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, São Tomé and Príncipe, Somalia, Tanzania, and Tonga." Source: Montenegro still unrecognized by 13 "exotic" countries -- B92 report from 20 Jan 2016. 108.162.179.236 (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

North Macedonia

macedonia has been renamed after a 27-year dispute with greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.131.124.198 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This has not yet been made official. An agreement has been reached in principal, but the official agreement is planned to be signed before the 28th of June, and will need approval by both the Northern Macedonian Parliament and then the Greek Parliament.[34] - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Swaziland

I agree with the listing remaining under the tag "Swaziland", but shouldn't we have a cross-reference listing for the recently announced name? Something like what is done with "Côte d'Ivoire" and "China, Republic of". Of course, we would first need clarification of the whole eSwatini vs Eswatini business mentioned over at the Swaziland page.... --Khajidha (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Done, added under the listing of "Eswatini", as that form of capitalization seems to be the consensus reached in the discussion on Talk:Swaziland#Changing "Kingdom of eSwatini" to "Kingdom of Eswatini" - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. --Khajidha (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2018

Koen Peters (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment to be added: Vanuatu = New Hebrides

Comment to be added: Vanuatu is the same place as the New Hebrides.
Many people who know about the history of the Southwest Pacific, and the long, bloody conflict there during 1942-44, are a lot more familiar with "New Hebrides" and "Espiritu Santo" than they are with "Vanuatu". During that period of fighting over the Solomon Islands and the islands north of those, the New Hebrides and Espiritu Santo (to the south) were IMPORTANT American naval and air bases.24.156.77.8 (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree. If we were to include all historical (or colonial) names of modern sovereign states, the list would be rather taken over by them, and it would be rather off topic.
This article is a list of sovereign states, not an encyclopaedia in its own right. If someone wants to look up the New Hebrides, they are most likely to put the words "New Hebrides" in the search box and that will give them the article New Hebrides. Similarly, if someone wants to know about Vanuatu, they can go to the article Vanuatu. Kahastok talk 14:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
This is crazy because Vanuatu and the New Hebrides are one and the same place, and there is no reason for there to be two different articles on them. This is just like the case of Siam and Thailand, which are one and the same place. See the article on Thailand for a CLEAR explanation for that!24.156.77.8 (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Well if that is really how you feel, then go and tell the people on Vanuatu and New Hebrides that they need to merge their articles. As I see no reason why this should be accommodated on this article while there is still a distinction being made between the two articles Vanuatu and New Hebrides. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Constitutive theory

I can't understand why don't we include such states as DPR and LPR. They are recognized as sovereign by some other states like South Ossetia. And South Ossetia is recognized by UN member states, so it is sovereign according to the constitutive theory. Then, DPR and LPR are recognized by sovereign South Ossetia. The they should be included in the list. Perhaps you say that only recognition by UN members means that the state is sovereign according to the constitutive theory. But in the theory there as nothing about such organization as UN. I hope you understand the question, sorry for my English... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.185.6 (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Because we have no reliable sources describing that, under international law, either of these two entities have yet met the requirements of a sovereign state. See List of states with limited recognition#Excluded entities for more. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Misleading list content

The list of the article about ↓ UN member states and observer states ↓ with occupied, disputed or unrecognized territories is misleading. I've attempted to fix that but some users have reverted my changes. User @Kahastok: in hist revert wrote that As explained in hidden text, these are not entries in the list, they are navigation aids, here to benefit the reader.. I don't think that this view "benefits the reader" at all, and as it was said even its explanation is hidden for casual reader. Also, I don't see any need for such "navigation aids", who proved that we need them? The article entry clearly differentiates three categories: 193 member states, 2 observer states, and 11 other states but the list with current view, messes up everything putting occupied, disputed or unrecognized territories in the same list with UN member states and observer states.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 19:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No, not everything is in one list with UN member states and observer states. The UN members and observers are in the first list, followed by those without UN membership or observer status in the second list.
What you are doing is removing the navigation aids that are there to help readers find entries that they're looking for. Or more precisely, some of the navigation aids.
The visual distinction between the navigation aids and the entries on the list is blindingly obvious at even the first glance. Less obvious in the markup - hence the hidden text - but in the table as a whole it is difficult to imagine any reader confusing the navigation aids for list entries. Thus I find your suggestion that the list content is somehow misleading to be unpersuasive. Kahastok talk 20:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@Kahastok: you call my arguments unpersuasive, I can say the same about yours. Could you explain to me why we put those "other states" in ↓ UN member states and observer states ↓ list? This article is not so long to don't find "other states" list. So called "navigation aids" argument is irrelevant here. I do read Artsakh or Somaliland in UN member states list why?!--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 22:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a difference between UN members and other states list, the same difference must be in "navigational aids". I don't see any help for a reader by putting name "Transnistria" for three times.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 22:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
We don't put any "other states" in the list of UN member and observer states. We do put pointers in for users who are looking for something that isn't where they might be expecting it. If we don't, we'll have people coming on talk complaining that they can't find what they're looking for or adding those entities to the list of UN member and observer states.
The visual distinction between the pointers and the list entries would seem obvious even to the most unattentive reader, so it is difficult to see how you might have missed it. Kahastok talk 18:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Kahastok: what you say is wrong, people do search about entities by its name (text) not by flags or etc. You say that We don't put any "other states" in the list of UN member and observer states — but you do, I read names of those territories in UN member state list, why? They are not part of that community, so why we put (even their "navigational aids") there? You also say We do put pointers in for users who are looking for something that isn't where they might be expecting it I do not know about which users are you talking, I do not think that someone will start looking for Somaliland or Transnistria in UN Member states, and if someone does, this shows their ignorance, we must not sacrifice content to ignorance! We must differ UN member states and others in everything.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 07:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is not here for people who are ignorant of some aspects of the topic that they are reading about, it is difficult to imagine who it is here for. Someone who already knows everything about a topic probably isn't going to look it up on Wikipedia.
If you do a text search you will find a number of entities that aren't UN member states in the list of UN members and observers, including Wales, Aruba, Rodrigues, Zanzibar and Karakalpakstan. None of them are listed as UN members or observers. Nor are any of the entities in the "other states" list.
And actually, I can very easily imagine a user showing up, scrolling down to look for a state without pausing to read the header for the list in detail, and then wondering where it is when they can't find it. It's probably what I would do in that circumstance. The reason to have pointers is to tell them. Kahastok talk 21:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"State of Japan"?

Per [35] and [36] there is no any type of "official name" of Japan. "State of Japan" just the lit. translation from their formally writing, no statement about the actually "official name" was found. So I will remove it. --minhhuy (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Content moved to Template:List of States

Content from this article/list has been moved to a template format instead of being present on the principal article.

As per merge discussions that have taken place on the following articles:
List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent
List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Africa
List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia
List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe
List of sovereign states and dependent territories in North America
List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania
List of sovereign states and dependent territories in South America
It was decided to merge the content from List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent onto the various sub-articles (See Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent#Merges needed), and instead replace the tables in that list with tables generated from a template of the list in this article. This merge has now been mostly completed and the various template tables are in place. Consequently, it was now possible for this article to use the same template with identical content to that which was already present on this list. This has the advantage of now requiring only 1 update on the template's page to affect multiple articles. I have performed this action now on this page. However, for the template to work the table had to be converted to base HTML format instead of the classic wiki-table syntax format, as the 'if' templates within do not work well with wiki-table syntax. The table content should still be legible, as it was when it was contained within this article, so hopefully this does not cause any confusion to editors from this article when the need to make changes to the table arises.
Note: The template will default to the form needed in this list, however it now also contains more data and advanced sorting features that are required by the other article. - Wiz9999 (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, this is a high profile page, and no discussion took place on this page regarding this change. It doesn't matter if consensus was reached regarding the various lists of states on continents, this is a separate page and consensus must be reached here for such a drastic change. I oppose such a change anyway, moving the bulk of the content of this page to another is unacceptable.XavierGreen (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, I figured there might be some opposition to the change, but seeing as there has been no actual change to the content of the article I did not expect someone to be so vehemently in disagreement with the content now existing in template form. Yes I was aware that the discussion did not take place on this talk page. However, I figured it was best to generate the template first, using a copy of the content from this page, for the sake of the other list. After this technically tedious process had been done, this list could then be updated to use the template too, and I would then kick off a discussion here about the technical details of the migration to the new location (as I did not see someone not liking the ultimate usefulness this change). As this is merely a technical change it seemed that the finer details could be discussed upon and decided how this could affect this page in the long term. I performed these actions with the desire to have a template being the ultimate location of the content, so that an editor might just update it once in one page and the change would propagate through the template to this page, the other page, and any other pages that might use the content of the template in future (remember this template can be updated and the display of information changed to suit an article's need). - Wiz9999 (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I would kindly request to other editors that this discussion should continue as to whether or not the article should use the new template. I would request a vote on this issue, please put a Support or Do not support below: - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, as per my arguments above. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This page should host its own content, as a standalone list, not dependent on some other template over which editors of this page do not have direct control. Additionally, the html table, with its complex logic, is a barrier to entry for people wishing to edit this list, especially those who are not technically skilled. I can see the aims of this, to keep the various lists in sync, but that is IMHO better achieved through regular editing as it always has been.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Inclined to oppose on practical grounds. While I can see the benefits, as presented to the reader and to most editors, it still looks as though this page is the place to discuss the contents of this article, when by the proposal that discussion would have to go on the talk page of what would be some obscure template. Kahastok talk 21:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Seeing as entire month has basically past, with no support, and only objections to the proposal, I will abandon the concept of migrating the contents of the article to this new template. Instead, the template will be used solely for the other article's functioning. I will do my best to attempt to keep consistency between the template and changes made here to this article, but obviously they will start to differ from each other over time, because of a difference in purpose and function. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes

My good faith edits have been reverted on this tricky and protected page, so I'll list out what I've changed and see if it can get approved by everyone.

  • Add: Cape Verde note — "The government of Cape Verde uses "Cabo Verde" as the English translation since 2013[1]"
    • A similar note already exists for East Timor (Timor-Leste) and the Czech Republic (Czechia), included a citation as well.
  • Add: Ivory Coast note — "The government of Ivory Coast uses "Côte d'Ivoire" as the English translation"
    • Similar to above, a similar note already exists for East Timor (Timor-Leste) and the Czech Republic (Czechia)
  • Add: Myanmar note — "The country's official name of Myanmar, adopted in 1989, has been mixed and controversial, with the former name Burma sometimes being used. See Names of Myanmar."
    • Notably, more recent name change that explains the simultaneous use of the names Myanmar and Burma.
  • Add: Artsakh note — "Formerly known as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, its official name from 1991 to 2017"
    • Very recent short-form name change, some may still not be aware of the change to Artsakh so I believe mention the old name of Nagorno-Karabakh is worth mentioning.
  • Add: South Ossetian note — "Following a name change referendum in 2017, the government has adopted "South Ossetia–Alania" as its official short name"
    • Official short name, if Nagorno-Karabakh was instantly changed to Artsakh, the new Alania name may as well be noted. Also in line with Czechia and Timor-Leste having not-as-popular short names. (Withdrawn proposal)
  • Remove: Benin note — "Formerly referred to as Dahomey, its official name until 1975."
    • The country has not been referred to as Dahomey for 43 years and it's no longer a popular alternative name, there is no common mix up between the modern name of Benin and Dahomey.
  • Remove: Burkina Faso note — "Also known as Burkina; formerly referred to as Upper Volta, its official name until 1984."
    • Similar to above, the country has not been referred to as Upper Volta for 34 years and it's no longer a popular alternative name, there is no common mix up between the modern name of Burkina Faso and Upper Volta.
  • Remove: Part of Iceland note — "The official title of the President of Iceland (Forseti Íslands) does also not include the word republic as in some other republics."
    • This is the last sentence of Iceland's note on how its official name isn't the "Republic of Iceland". Reads as WP:OR, as the title of the President has no connection to the official name of a State. Also the words "Republic of Iceland" is bolded for seemingly no good reason.
  • Remove: Myanmar note — "The government changed the state's official name in English from "Union of Myanmar" to "Republic of the Union of Myanmar" in October 2010."
    • There is no other case of an official long name change being noted, personally don't believe we need to list every legal change
  • Remove: Sri Lanka note — "Formerly known as Ceylon until 1972."
    • Similar to above, the country has not been referred to as Ceylon for 46 years and it's no longer a popular alternative name, there is no common mix up between the modern name of Sri Lanka and Ceylon. (Withdrawn proposal)
  • Change: Technical tag for Ireland — #tag:ref → efn
    • Just to keep Ireland's country note consistent with other country notes
  • Change: South Ossetian name entry and note — " South Ossetia – Republic of South Ossetia–the State of Alania"
    • Name changed following referendum, this should be an uncontroversial change.

Thoughts? Thanks. Nice4What (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The additions and changes look OK to me, but I don't think the removals should be done. Just because a change in name was some time ago doesn't mean it's no longer relevant.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd argue that these old names are no longer relevant though, only Burma is still popularly used and Zaire is fairly recent as well (that's why I proposed no change). Nice4What (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I would argue that Ceylon is still used fairly often by people in the UK and elsewhere in the anglophone world. I would argue for this entry not to be removed, as per the Zaire statement. In the Sri Lanka article the following statement can be found: "As the name Ceylon still appears in the names of a number of organisations, the Sri Lankan government announced in 2011 a plan to rename all those over which it has authority." However, I do not see any reason why the statements about Dahomey and Upper Volta should be retained. These terms seem to be completely out of use by this stage. I will clarify below which changes I support and oppose. - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I support all the changes. I agree that we don't need a comprehensive list of all name changes, as that would expand this page considerably. Perhaps a link to Timeline of historical geopolitical changes, where name changes are listed, would be helpful. TDL (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose What a government calls its country is irrelevant here. What English language reliable sources call it is what counts. Previous names should be used based on the same principle, not on when the name officially changed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Cape Verde note addition:
Support - The proposal is reasonable and the comparison to East Timor and the Czech Republic is sound. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ivory Coast note addition:
Support - As above. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Myanmar note addition:
Support - Due to the popularity of both terms, I don't see why this shouldn't be added. Note: I additionally oppose the removal of the "Union of ..." to "Republic of the ..." statement as I feel that both statements are relevant and there should be allocation for both. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Artsakh note addition:
Support - Agreed, change is too recent to not make note of the old name. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • South Ossetia note addition:
Support, with adjustments - The sources check out, on the South Ossetia and South Ossetian name change referendum, 2017 articles, clarifying the nature of the official name change and referendum. However, it is only the 'official name' that has changed. Near as I can tell there is no sourced evidence that the country is now known as "South Ossetia-Alania", only 'officially' as the "Republic of South Ossetia–the State of Alania". Therefore this new note should instead probably read more like: — "Following a name change referendum in 2017, the government has adopted the "Republic of South Ossetia–the State of Alania" as its official name, replacing its former official name, the "Republic of South Ossetia"." - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Wiz9999: There's no point in listing official long name changes, as I've said in my reply below. "South Ossetia-Alania" is named as such to reflect Russia's own North Ossetia-Alania. From Sputnik: "South Ossetian President Leonid Tibilov first proposed to rename the republic to South Ossetia-Alania in analogy with the Russian constituent of North Ossetia-Alania." Nice4What (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this may have been mentioned briefly by the previous president in the run up to the referendum, but, as far as I can tell, there is no sourced evidence to suggest that this name was adopted in any capacity by the SO government. I would refrain from adding it till there is evidence of this found. - Wiz9999 (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest not including any note then and just changing the official name entry to Republic of South Ossetia–the State of Alania. Nice4What (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Very well then, I can also see that as an acceptable choice. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Benin note removal:
Support - As I stated earlier, this alternate name seems to have completely faded out of use in English.[37] - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Burkina Faso note removal:
Support - As I stated earlier, this alternate name also seems to have completely faded out of use in English entirety.[38] - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Part of Iceland note removal:
Support - I support the changes proposed for this, for the reasons stated. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Myanmar note removal:
Oppose - This change, although admittedly quite minor, was quite recent and directly affects the listing of the official name. I disagree with it's removal, it is too recent a change. I feel both this statement and the Burma one should be present. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Wiz9999: However, I think it should be removed because we don't list all these long name changes and they don't add much to the article. Somalia, Hungary, and Libya have all changed their long names even more recently but we don't note these changes. They're all at Timeline of historical geopolitical changes. Nice4What (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, you raise a good point here. I had not realised there had been this many name changes SINCE 2010, when Myanmar changed its name. I retract my objection. - Wiz9999 (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Sri Lanka note removal:
Oppose - As stated earlier, some people in the UK, US and other parts of the anglophone world still use this term. Additionally, in the Sri Lanka article the following statement can be found: "As the name Ceylon still appears in the names of a number of organisations, the Sri Lankan government announced in 2011 a plan to rename all those over which it has authority.". - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Wiz9999: I wouldn't oppose keeping the Ceylon note. Nice4What (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ireland note change/correction:
Support - This must have just been an oversight, I can't see anyone opposing this minor technical change. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • South Ossetia 'official' name entry change:
Support - As per the aforementioned reasons in the note addition above. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tanya Basu (14 December 2013). "Cape Verde Gets New Name: 5 Things to Know About How Maps Change". National Geographic. Retrieved 8 October 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Eswatini vs Czechia

is there any evidence that Eswatini and not Swaziland is the common name in English for the "Kingdom of Eswatini". I ask because I recall all the concern about renaming short name to common name so wikipedia did not need to put the word Czechia on this list 97.127.64.22 (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Go here: Talk:Eswatini - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks...so the test is if English media uses it vs common English speaking people?....just trying to understand how it works around here. 97.127.64.22 (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
According to the consensus by editors over at Talk:Eswatini, yes, that is the case. It was the deciding factor during the whole "Swaziland"/"Eswatini" debate. However, I strongly disagree with that stance, because I feel it is going against the principal set out in the following Wikipedia guideline: WP:COMMONNAME. I think it should matter what commonly spoken English users actually use. Relating this back to your original question, "Czechia" would not qualify under either perspective, as it is not in common spoken use by the majority of English speakers [39], nor it is widely used by major media organisations. - Wiz9999 (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
This is a bit of a fork, but the common name issue is a widespread problem across wp. Many governments have policies, often backed by legislation, that actively promotes a certain language or spelling or grammar style. This promotion initially contradicts the common use, but over time the common use changes to fit the new style. The media/govt promoted version will be over represented in reliable sources and will therefore be used in wikipedia even though the common use version is more prevalent. In this way, wp policies can contradict, which causes plenty of debate. The majority of English speakers would not say Eswatini. Similarly, most people would not write Nicolae Ceaușescu with a cedilla, but that is the title of the English wiki article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I consider this article’s claim of Navassa Island NOT being stolen from Haiti to be problematic. It should be under “stolen” along with Bajo Neuevo Bank, Serranilla Bank, and you might as well just put all 50 states under “Stolen” but this US propaganda site won’t admit it. Someone with brains please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.58.107 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

What you are talking about does not make any sense, as there is no "Stolen" category or heading in this list/article. The US is the controller/occupier of these territories, and the article reflects this. - Wiz9999 (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
And exactly WHICH country in the world has an unbroken, pure line of descent from its original human occupants so that it could legitimately be said not to be stolen land? --Khajidha (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Madagascar, Mauritius, Cape Verde, the Seychelles, and Iceland. Thats probably about it though.XavierGreen (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey are you an idiot? Do not come out and say that everything that belongs to the United States was stolen! There are one or two question marks but not everything was stolen. As a United States citizen do I feel that Navassa Island should be given back to Haiti in order to improve relations? Yes I do but that is not up to me, I do not make that call! thank you Earth1000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earth1000 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Croatia

International recognition of Croatia says that there are several countries that don't recognize Croatia. Should this be added to the "Sovereignty dispute" entry for Croatia in this list? --Yair rand (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

No. This is one of a number of cases where recognition has never been formally extended because they've failed to fill in the paperwork, not because there is any real-life dispute as to the state's legitimacy. The wordings of the column header and its explanatory note make it clear that only active disputes are to be included in that column. Kahastok talk 09:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, most of the entities that the article claims don't recognize Croatia actually do recognize Croatia, having voted for Croatia's membership into the UN or signed multilateral treaties of which Croatia was also a signatory. Both constitute an act recognizing the international personality of Croatia.XavierGreen (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Changes to this article, including its table

I made many changes to this article and its table, like removing the small dark grey columns at the top, middle and bottom of the table, removing the header rows with the arrows pointing out the top and bottom of the UN and non-UN sections, replacing the table's white background colour with "#eaecf0", removing the style="vertical-align:top;" setting, removing the "span style" tags like "<insert_country_name> {e.g. Australia)" and "A AAA/ZZZ" (what's the point of them, especially the latter), removing the 'membership within the UN System' and 'sovereignty dispute' columns (what's the point of having two separate columns when the information under the two columns is the same for most countries, except for a few?), adding some separate columns for headings (letters), adding some information on what a country or sovereign state is, in the article's lead section, and adding some information about geographical subdivisions and geographical subdivisions in the fourth (second undeleted) column, in the hopes of making this list a featured list (like on the German and Indonesian Wikipedias).

Tell me what you think of the edits that I've made on my sandbox version of /List of sovereign states versus the current article (List of sovereign states), and which edits you like and what you think needs changing from there, and why? -- PK2 (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi PK2 after looking at your sandbox version I can tell you that you did a good job! I like it. However it would be up to the administrators to decide on what to do! However the part where it states how many sovereign states are where like 50 in Asia is probably not needed. Also you should probably put in the mention of the "Montevideo Convention" when it comes to the declarative theory of a sovereign state. But all in all it looks good especially where you divide it between the starting letter of each state like "A" than "B" and so forth. thanks Earth1000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earth1000 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Issues I noticed on a first look:
  • The removal of the second and third columns makes it far less clear which entities are subject to dispute or caveats, and makes it far less clear why the list is split the way it is. These clear indications are necessary for NPOV.
  • Your version removes all methods for sorting the table other than the one that you have chosen. The current table is designed to be sorted based on any of the first three columns, allowing user to divide UN members from non-members, undisputed states from disputed ones, or to get a fully-alphabetical list of all states without dividing UN and non-UN states if that is what they choose - while maintaining a split list (which is required for NPOV) in the default state. Previous discussion suggested that this sorting behaviour is highly desirable because it allows users to re-organise the list according to their own requirements.
  • It replaces the precisely-defined "UN member states and observer states" with the imprecisely-defined "Internationally-recognized sovereign states". Most entities in the second list are internationally-recognised to a degree. Not all states in the first list are universally recognised.
  • As the header "Internationally-recognised sovereign states" is at level 3 and "other states" is at level 4, entities without international recognition or with negligible international recognition are listed as "Internationally-recognised sovereign states".
I would note that it appears that you have not read or considered the many years of detailed discussion that went into creating the existing structure and have therefore not considered problems such as the above - and others - that are likely to arise.
All in all, I think the changes make the article worse, because they reduce usability and clarity without otherwise improving the reader experience. And in the interest of not spending the next few years reinventing the wheel, I would strongly oppose proceeding with this. Kahastok talk 22:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough; then what edits can I make to this article to make it a featured list and not like a supposed near-replica of the Member states of the United Nations article (as SilkTork pointed out on the 16th of July, 2011)? -- PK2 (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
SilkTork did not edit this talk page on 16 July 2011. But that was the date that this AFD was WP:SNOW closed as keep, with a clear consensus that this article is not a content fork or "near-replica" of Member states of the United Nations. No other editor agreed with the nominator on that question.
The article was put up for featured status a year later. None of the objections to promotion related to any similarities to Member states of the United Nations.
Moreover, neither the AFD nor the FL rejection advocated removing the middle two columns and enforcing a split between UN members and non-members - both measures that would actually make the article more similar to Member states of the United Nations.
If you want to jump the hurdles to get the article to featured status - and there's a fair bit of work to be done before a nomination would be appropriate IMO - a good start would be to look at areas that were actually identified as problematic last time it was suggested. That means improvements to the lead, plus the addition of a key to the colour coding, and symbols added for colourblind people. I'd suggest that most of the work will be in the prose, not in the table. Kahastok talk 11:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@PK2: I mostly agree with Kahastok here. But I feel I must state that the thing that I most strongly oppose about your overhaul is the removal of the two columns. Having a means of stating the entry's relationship to the UN system is critical to the "other states" section, along with the sovereignty dispute column. Additionally (and perhaps more importantly), it avoids endless debates over Palestine's entry location in particular, and other UN observers (e.g. Vatican city) to a lesser extent as well, since it has been clearly stated in the criteria that the principal body of the table includes UN observers. It is important to remember that this table is not just a duplicate of the UN members list (which is for the most part without any controversy), but it has a wider scope, and is thus also dealing with the highly sensitive issues regarding states on the fringes of sovereignty. As a result, entries need to be handled carefully, with space allocated for any caveats that are needed to be associated with a specific entry. Hence the 4 column structure.
If you really wish to make this article a featured article once again, you will need to focus on the contents of the table, not the structure of the table itself. This table's structure is a result of lots of compromise, based on numerous discussions that have occurred in the past. I would advise that the structure not be altered without consideration of that fact. Whereas the contents of each entry are constantly undergoing revision, as they are by no means perfect and there is definitely some room for improvement there. However, Incorporating the advanced sorting elements, I would argue, is somewhat vital to being able to use the table as intended, as it allows a reader to include/exclude the fringe cases as needed. To simply remove any alternative sorting method will not add any value to this article. I will note however, that I have observed some apparent errors/bugs in the entry sorting of this table, it was my intention to conduct some repairs on the column sorting in the coming days.
With regards to your comment about the statement made by SilkTork from 2011 (I only see comments made by this user on this talk page on 10 July 2011, just FYI), it seems, at the time, that this article was brought to the attention of this user due to a redirect of it having been created at List of countries (See: [40]). Note: This really is a very obscure discussion from >7 years ago, I would kindly request that you not refer to such a specific discussion from this article's history, as the issue was resolved at the time. If you have noticed a more general systematic problem from this article's past then please feel free to identify it for debate instead. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I know this discussion was from 2 weeks ago and so you and the other users probably won't respond to this comment, but I'm sorry for pinging you 2 weeks ago, but I don't understand the top comment on this AFD so could you or someone else please explain it to me? -- PK2 (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

'recognise' or 'recognize'?

Sorry if this is of no importance, but the article uses both of these words abundantly. Quinnov (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the MOS:CONSISTENCY of the MOS:ENGVAR in this article/list is not great. Probably a consequence of editors coming from both sides of the Atlantic I think. It can be resolved, but first it should be determined which variant predominates here. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The "s" spelling is used almost twice as much as the "z" spelling in this article and about 1/3 of the "z" spellings are in quotations. Seems like we should standardize on "s". --Khajidha (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC) (before anyone asks, I'm an American who finds the "s" spelling odd, but the facts support using it it here)
Yes, but must must consider the other words from the MOS:SPELLING list other than just recognise/recognize. It will probably still result with en-GB being the predominant form, but we should still do the check. - Wiz9999 (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Found two uses of "demilitarised". Several uses of "specialized agency", but that is the form used by the UN and is Oxford spelling as well. Couldn't find any other indicator words. ---Khajidha (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Archive_14&oldid=1136952352"