Template talk:Sovereign states of Europe/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Sealand

Shouldn't Sealand be included as an unrecognised territory? There's no debate about it being geographically in Europe, as it's off the coast of England, and it has declared independence from the UK.--GingerM 19:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because no other encyclopedia even mentions Sealand. Joke states are unencyclopedic. Telex 19:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
But if you look at this article here it says "...the Government and courts finally admitted that the tower, built to help to defend Britain from invasion in the 1940s, is outside British national territory and not part of the United Kingdom." So if the government admits it isn't part of the UK, then I'd class it as unrecognised terrority, as no country has officially recognised it but the UK has admitted they don't control it.--GingerM 19:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Not quite. See this article according to which in 1987 the UK extended its territorial waters from 3 to 12 miles from the coast, so the UK's territorial waters now do include Sealand (so they do admit to control it). A specific quote is:
But John Gibson, an expert on sea law and sovereignty at Cardiff University, said the legitimacy of Sealand's claim depends on whether it was recognised as a nation before 1987.
He said because Sealand was man-made there was little chance that it would be recognised as a nation. "I don't think structures of that kind count as territory," he said.
If you read the rest of the article, it appears that only Mr Bates himself disputed this and claims is was recognised as a nation. Of course, he has failed to substansiate this claim, so it remains an assertion until proven. Moreover, my concern that this man made platform is not even mentioned in any other encyclopedias, so I see no reason for Wikipedia to break with tradition has not been addressed. Telex 19:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Update proposal for subheadings and adding Åland

I propose to bring this template uptodate with terms used in List of countries. This would mean either adding a new line Special entities: Åland | Svalbard. Or alternatively changing Other territories: into Other territories and entities: and adding Åland. (NB. the above votes on Åland, etc. are no longer relevant as the word dependency is not used anymore) --Trainthh 23:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo

What about Kosovo?

It is not a full part of Serbia it is not recognized as an independent entity. --Goran.Smith2 09:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

territories and special entities

I do not think they (territories and special entities) belong to this template and instead to their own template. Else we will need to include every canadian province and us state on template:north america. Only sovern countries (weather its defacto (no international recognition) or not) --Cat out 03:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

support. I think list on this template or not should depert from
  1. they did proclamation of independence or not
  2. somone(might be UN) accept it or not
I think list only 1 and 2 is simple and understandable. Greenland did? I'm not sure. and where is Sealand? --Suisui 03:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Only countries claiming to be independent should be here. If the country has no international concensus for recognition (I think its safe to say UN), they should be presented as "unrecognised". A footnote for North Cyprus would be good practice (Turkey does recognise north and not the south cyprus)
I think sealand claims to be a country (unrecognised one for certain), so it should appear there. I'll add it if its not on the template after saving this.
--Cat out 23:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
No, Sealand should not be featured, else we'd have to include about a hundred European micronations. —Nightstallion (?) 12:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
But none of those claim to be sovereign. Sealand does (yes they are a ridiclous entity and yes I wish a topedo accidentaly blew them up :P) --Cat out 00:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This template is for countries, not only sovereign states. There's no reason to exclude those countries that are not sovereign states. — Instantnood 11:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a non-sovereign country, either they claim to be a country (defecto or not) or they don't belong here. In the US there are 50 Non-sovereign countries. Canada has 9 I believe. Les not forget mexico. We do not list all of them all. --Cat out 00:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Instantnood. --Göran Smith 21:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Non-sovereign territories are already covered in these templates by the respective countries exercising sovereignty over them. There is a reason why we therefore add Taiwan but exclude Tibet, we add the West Bank but exclude the Golan Heights, and so on. All four are under competing claims by various parties, but only the former in each case are under the control of a distinct party independent from the other vested parties.--Huaiwei 17:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is talking about Tibet or the Golan Heights here. Isle of Man, Gibraltar, Åland, the Faroe Islands, etc., are not Tibet or the Golan Heights. — Instantnood 19:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Nobody? I just did. And so did several editors above who say just about any other territory could be listed also. Editors who insist on adding some territories will have to justify the exclusion of others. I consider removing all of them as the best solution.--Huaiwei 08:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed them myself and will continue to do so. Either all territories (including entities like "Wales") are redundently listed, or none will be. Best solution is listing none. Create a seperate template for it. --Cat out 12:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Armenia

Armenian is clearly NOT in Europe, it is in Asia (the Middle East) and part of Asian culture because it's IN ASIA. Wikipedia should be a source of factual information not a place for wishfull thinking and geopolitical agendas Please remove Armenia and all non European nations from this area. Just because many Armenians don't like their Middle Eastern neighbors doesn't give them the right to re-draw the map. I am sorry some Armenians don't like being in Asia, but there are MANY Armenians who are proud of their true heritage and freely admit being and Asian nation. Don't let a few self-haters tarnish and distort the truth of Armenia's geographic location. --Calgvla 08:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Many Armenians want to be considered European. Many Western-European names, such as Robert, Ruchard, Karen, Pierre, Ronald, Harry, Edmond, very popular in Armenia. But having European name still does not make European.--Nixer 14:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This is very similar to the Turks. In their quest to distance themselves from their largely Islamic neighbours, they choose to downplay their long and obvious affinity with the Asian landmass, and emphasize purely on looking west. I faces issues in Airline destinations‎ for the same reason....pro-European activists both in the countries in question and amongst Europeans keen to see an expanded EU attempting to classify more and more of these countries under Europe at the expense of Asia.--Huaiwei 17:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Many Europeans don't consider Turkey to be culturally and historically European. Are they pro-Europe? — Instantnood 20:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
At whom is this irrelevant question directed at?--Huaiwei 08:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Turkey is geographicaly in Asia and has been considered European even in international treaties. As for Armenia and Cyprus, these are geographicaly in asia even though they are considered european in international treaties. So... I do not see a reason why either three cant belong here. In fact I do not see the point of this debate. --Cat out 12:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Turkey should be in "countries of europe" template indeed. Because she really has soil in Europe continent. But i dont think she's european in politics. Some sick EU candidateship meetings (which are only a game for some parties to get higher votes from turkish immigrants in elections) doesnt approve this. CONCLUSION: Europe is a continent that Turkey is in. Europe is an entity where Turkey is not in (an entity which she must run away with no looking at back) --JohnEmerald 16:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Fascinating argument. However, this is a debate that's been going on since the Middle Ages and earlier. Different people come to different conclusions using different criteria. For Wikipedia's purposes, it is convenient to Group Turkey, Cyprus, etc with Europe. It isn't a matter of Truth™ or something like that, just an editorial convenience. The fact is that there is no accepted Truth about where Europe ends and Asia begins. Did you know that the Western World thought it ended at Germany's eastern border before? Just one example of how relative, and how culturally-dependent one person's convictions about this geographically and politically ambiguous area is. — Saxifrage 16:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Abkhzia vs. Chechnya

Well, somebody rv ed me when I was trying to incude Ichkeria in the template. Ok, in Abkhazia, there is a de jure government, located in Kodori gorge and there is a de dacto Sokhumi based separatist govt. The same comparion would apply to Chechnya. If we delete Chechen Republic we should delete the Abkhzia separatist republic as well or vice versa if we wonna keep Chechenya we gotta keep Abkhazia too. Sosomk 22:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

we don't delete chechnya, we just don't include it. -- tasc wordsdeeds 22:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Why? What is the criteria? Can you explain in a civil manner. Sosomk 23:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not an unrecognized country. -- tasc wordsdeeds 23:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is [[1]] [[2]] Sosomk 23:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Soso does make a valid point here. In my opinion though, all pseudo-states should be removed, this template should be about actual countries, not entities in the process of becoming countries (Montenegro was an unrecognized state shortly after the declaration of independence).--Tekleni 07:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
So, how do you define which country is real and which is not? By the fact that it's not recognized by someone? -- tasc wordsdeeds 07:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
By its membership of the UN. Taiwan not a member, yet is recognized by 24 member states, and is classified as a so-called "unrecognized state" on Wikipedia. Israel OTOH is a member of the UN, yet is not recognized by 24 other member states. Why is Taiwan an "unrecognized state" and Israel isn't? By the number of states recognizing them? Where do you draw the line?--Tekleni 07:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
don't really understand what taiwan and israel has to do with it. From wp pov they both Partially unrecognized states. anyway we certainly don't draw the line across neither recognized, nor un member, nor controlling any territory entities. -- tasc wordsdeeds 07:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well then why not include Sealand (see #Sealand)? De facto control is subjective. Do you think that any of these "puppet statelets" could survive on their own without some backing (whether it's Turkey backing the TRNC or Russia backing South Ossetia). Believe me, they'd starve; these are cases of foreign military occupation masquerading as states. You think the South Ossetian separatist authorities control its territory? Wrong, Russia controls its territory.--Tekleni 07:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Than we probably should also exclude Georgia as it doesn't control territory it claims? -- tasc wordsdeeds 07:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
This is where the UN membership and recognition come into play. Serbia doesn't control all the territory it claims either. Why not include Kosovo as well?--Tekleni 07:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Why not. if majority editors agrees. -- tasc wordsdeeds 07:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should at try to be internally consistent with List of countries. My preference would be to exclude any entity that has no diplomatic relations with other countries, but including those (and only those) listed in List of countries seems reasonable. --Polaron | Talk 13:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this comment is helpful, but I parcipated very briefly in a discussion on another talk page related to the unrecognized country issue. ne of the other posters over there pointed out that these places are all listed in Wikipedia already. They are on: List of countries as unrecognized countries. They are also on List of sovereign states. Of course also on List of unrecognized countries which is what we link to. There has already been extensively discussion on those Talk pages and Wikipedia-wide editor consensus was reached. It is always best to seek consistency on the whole encyclopedia. - Pernambuco 13:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)