Talk:Dependent territory/Archive 3

Jan Mayen
Hi,

I would think that Jan Mayen would be listed here, as it is an unincorporated area given the same status as Svalbard, which is listed here. Is there any specific reason for this, or has it just not been added yet?

Thanks.

TheRealGrantma (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Dependent territory/Archive 2. TFD (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've added the source mentioned there, which discusses the difference, into the article. CMD (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * So how is Svalbard different from Scotland or Australia's Northern Territory? Is there a specific distance it must be from the state to meet our article's criteria to be a dependent territory rather than an internal territory? Why isn't Hawaii listed? It's thousands of miles away from the U.S. mainland, the U.S. government reported it as a non-self-governing territory even after it became an incorporated territory, it has self-government and under international law has a right to self-determination. TFD (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand the questions are somewhat rhetorical, but Svalbard is currently included in the similar entities section, so there is some distinction. I wish there were better sources as well. CMD (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The argument for including Svalbard is that Norwegian sovereignty is limited. But that applies to many territories acquired by treaty. When the U.S. gained its independence, it retained the right to fish in Newfoundland, which continues today. Under another treaty, the U.S. is not allowed to sail battleships in the Great Lakes. Hawaii and Quebec have a right to self-determination under international law. Federal nations such as Canada and the U.S. have either ceded or never extinguished rights of constituent states. I'm sure there are lots of other anomalies. The list of similar entities will always be subjective. TFD (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Near as I can tell, the main justification for why Svalbard was still included here (at the exclusion of say Jan Mayen, since both are prevalent throughout sources) was becase of the arbitrary statement in the leed of including entries of "special position guaranteed by an international treaty". It is the same reason why we still include Hong Kong and Macau (PRC treaty with UK), as well as the reason why the totally unsourced Åland Islands are included (demilitarised since the end of the Crimean War/Åland War). - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * There must be dozens of territories that are subject to international treaties. I just provided one example, Newfoundland, which incidentally once was an independent country and is separated from the Canadian mainland, although it has territory in Quebec.
 * , both Svalberg and Jan Mayen were incorporated into Norway when they were acquired.
 * TFD (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Both Jan Mayen and Svalbard shouldn't be included in the list. The only Norwegian territory which can be considered a dependency is the uninhabited Bouvet Island. 120.16.24.243 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Under what justification/reasoning do you also make this statement? - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Åland?
Why on earth is Åland included in the list? It is an internal administrative region of Finland with a special status. A lot of countries have these types of administrative division. For example, Jeju Island of South Korea, Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir of Pakistan, the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, Easter Island of Chile, Karakalpakstan of Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Inner Mongolia of China, the Chatham Islands of New Zealand, the Azores and Madeira of Portugal, and Zanzibar of Tanzania etc. Should we include them all? 120.16.24.243 (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The article currently has a provision for including entities who have a "special position" guarenteed by international treaty. I believe the original justification for including Åland within the article relate to the international treaty that helped establish Åland (See here: Åland War and Treaty of Paris (1856)). However, I will point out it is completely unrepresented in all of our most prominent reliable sources. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Outlying island territories of the United States
Source: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:US

According to the ISO official website, all outlying island territories of the United States are considered intergal parts of the country (even though most of them are unincorporated). The UN and the ISO do not recognise these offshore islands as dependencies of the US. Should we move the United States section to "Lists of similar entities" instead? 120.16.24.243 (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * That is not the purpose or meaning of the ISO codes. Note how American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are included in that ISO page, but are also listed on the official UN list of non-self-governing territories. CMD (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that a place need to be inhabited in order to qualify as a dependency. That's why American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are considered dependencies while the United States Minor Outlying Islands aren't. 04:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment by 144.130.162.86


 * Or it could be that the minor islands have no legal personality. TFD (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Lots of uninhabited places can be considered dependencies, Bouvet Island and the BIOT are the most classic examples of this type of dependency. Most of the time these places are just ignored though, since without people present there is no need for representation, despite these places having a legal distinction equivalent to that of other inhabited dependent territories (The United States Minor Outlying Islands are a convention more than a distinct legal entity, as they group several dependent territories together). - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * These uninhabited islands are overseas territories instead of dependent territories. They have no local government, therefore there is no dependent relationship between them and their administering state. Whether they are classified as individual territories or as a group of territories won't change their status. 120.17.162.237 (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Under U.S. law, they are not an integral part of the U.S.--they are neither part of a state, nor a federal district such as DC (nor part thereof), nor an incorporated territory such as Palmyra (nor a part thereof). By the definition provided in the article, they are dependent territories.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
Some of the current entries in the "Lists of dependent territories" shouldn't be included. I think it's time for us to draft an inclusion criteria for this article. My suggestion is that we should use the United Nations M49 list and the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The M49 list includes all sovereign states and self-governing/non-self-governing territories recognised by the UN. The other list includes non-self-governing territories (dependent territories) only.

For our article, all those self-governing territories should be included in the "Lists of similar entities" instead. 120.16.24.243 (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with coming up with easy to understand inclusion criteria for this article. As I've previously commented, however, it's more important for this article to have an easy to understand, well sourced DEFINITION of 'dependent territory', something it still lacks, before we decide what is and isn't dependent. A read of this comment section over the past few months alone shows that we really haven't pinned this down yet. I also am coming round to thinking we should *completely abolish the 'similar entities' section, as being original research*. If they're not dependent, they're not dependent. ҉ Randwicked ҉ 07:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * To the extent there may be original research, it is in the split, not in the entries of the similar entities section. The original sources this page developed from, years ago, such as the CIA World Factbook, just had single lists. CMD (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to re-post my table of RS's (now updated) from the previous section (Why are the Australian external territories here) from this talk page. I have updated it now with columns for entries from the UN M49 nations list and the UN non-self-governing list as well as re-listing the entries from the newly updated CIA worldfactbook website (which underwent a major overhaul in January 2021):

&ast; Entries marked with an asterisk in either the Annex A5 list and the M49 list mark where entries are not clearly identified as 'dependent territories', but potentially as independent states/countries.

The UN M49 list does not in any way distinguish between those states that are independent from dependent territories within its list. This is problematic to use it as a source for this article since some territories are considered 'independent' under certain circumstances and considered 'dependent' under other circumstances (most notable examples of this are Niue and the Cook Islands). The UN M49 list is also woefully out of date and is listing entries such as the Netherlands Antilles which hasn't existed as a political entity for more than a decade now. Additionally, no uninhabited territories are listed for either the UN M49 list or the UN Non-Self-Governing list. This is either by intention, or simply due to the fact that the UN does not consider these unpopulated areas as important under any capacity. This causes a problem for us to utilise the two references as sources, since we simply do not know if uninhabited territories are specifically excluded deliberately or not, despite legal equivalence within an administering state. For example, consider the UK's British Overseas Territories, each of which have a legally equivalent association with the UK, (e.g. Saint Helena [populated], South Georgia [no population], and BIOT [only a military population]) yet only Saint Helena is on the two UN lists. The UN Non-Self-Governing list is especially problematic as it has the explicit intention of highlighting territories that UN deems are pending decolonisation via some manner. Thus, it is a very POV list. Yes, all the entries on the UN Non-Self-Governing list are most certainly dependent, but the list (by design) is hardly encompassing of ALL dependent territories, and is thus a pretty poor source to be used for this article. Consequently, I have made the table again, excluding these two problematic sources. I have also grouped certain related entries together, in order to show how we could potentially change the article to represent the information from the sources better:

The inclusion criteria ultimately would have to be based on referenced sources in one way or another. So far, these four sources are the most directly relatable we have for "dependent territories"/"dependent areas"/"dependencies" to be included in this article. Even though a firm definition of "dependent territory" still eludes us in the available RS's. However, it is notable that some of the entries we currently have within the article are not directly reflected within these handful of available sources. Essentially, they all correspond with claimed territory, either in Antarctica or the two US island territories within the Caribbean (with the exception of Åland which is the only actually directly controlled territory not reflected in any of our sources). We may continue to list these entries, but the manner by which they are listed will need to be spelled out quite specifically in the inclusion criteria. The Antarctic claims are not directly referenced in the sources provided, but the overall category of "Antarctica" is included in at least two of the sources. The uninhabited island territories of the US are generally listed in all the sources, either directly or dually listed under one of the two categories of "US Pacific Island Wildlife Refuges" and "US Minor Outlying Islands". I feel there is some justification there to merge all of these entries into one (or both) of these terms as a result, seeing as this is reflected overall in the sources (with the notable exception of the sourced UN lists, which do not include any uninhabited territories).

Entities within the sources that are not currently associated with an entry on the article (in one form or another) consist only of: (64) Jan Mayen, (23) French Guiana, (28) Guadeloupe, (40) Martinique, (41) Mayotte, (55) Réunion, (52) Paracel Islands, (62) Spratly Islands, (73) Western Sahara, (50) "Occupied Palestinian Territory", and (65) "Taiwan Province of China". Of these, the French territories are totally internal to France and have been excluded from the list previously for that reason alone, Jan Mayen there have been numerous and continuing discussions about, and the remaining 5 entries all are areas of conflict and dispute that have multiple states/entities controlling them and/or are states with limited recognition. Regardless of what is decided for the French areas and Jan Mayen (when/if we draw up the criteria for this article), I feel very strongly that we should avoid the criteria permitting the inclusion of these dependencies/areas under circumstances involving general conflict/dispute, as they are all problematic existing entries in their nature (Western Sahara, Palestine, Taiwan, South China Sea islands, etc.) regardless of what is described in sources. This should be a key point in the criteria, as it will avoid many issues with editors coming in here and POV pushing for the inclusion of one territory or another (e.g. all the recent discussions over inclusion of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan that was brought up by one editor in particular). I think the inclusion criteria must be very clear about excluding entities that could be considered states with limited recognition and entities where there is no overall clear controlling state, due to dispute. - Wiz9999 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * As I said before, this is original research. International law does not distinguish between sovereign states and their dependencies, it's purely a matter of domestic law. And it takes expertise to determine that Taiwan, Aland and Jersey all belong in a category. TFD (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hence the need for more formal criteria than we already have present in the article. We are not going to get away from the OR issue, as we can't locate a singular agreed upon definition of "dependent territory". However, we can mitigate against it by creating article specific criteria. Additionally, we will maintain the overall NPOV of the article with such criteria. - Wiz9999 (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Of course, we could always just select one of the RS's and dogmatically stick to it, no matter what it says, to avoid the OR issue altogether. However, how do we choose between them? The main point I was trying to make by generating the comparison tables above was that there are significant differences between the RS's. Choosing one to fanatically stick to won't be easy, and we will be compromising the article's NPOV. @The Four Deuces Overall you are not really making an argument about a general WP:OR issue per say, but about the WP:SYNTH issues relating to us using multiple RS's/combining the RS's to make a generalised WP:NPOV list, which is a form of OR. - Wiz9999 (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Wiz9999. Do any of these sources actually DEFINE what they mean by dependency? Also, the CIA and EU style guide are STILL sadly inaccurate in calling Norfolk Island a self-governing territory, which makes me wonder how well researched these supposed reliable sources are in other ways. Surely either organisation could have put an intern on fixing this years-long error by now. It'd take them 5 minutes. ҉ Randwicked ҉ 07:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it is frustrating that the RS's list territories that are clearly more integrated into their parent states than other listed dependent territories. Norfolk Island and the French overseas departments and regions (French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, and Réunion) are particularly notable examples of this. However, as you mention, without a clear definition as to what is considered "dependent" or not it can't really be argued that these entries are not to be included. I remind you that "integrated" and "dependent" are not directly equivalent and interchangeable terms. Therefore, maybe our assumption is wrong, and the RS's understand the situation better than we do. We cannot assume we know better than our RS's, that is OR, and is part of the point The Four Deuces made directly above your commment. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I reckon we should just stick with the UN's M49 list and their list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The CIA's lists and the EU list can only represent one country or one region's point of view, they shouldn't be used as a globally-accepted RS. 144.130.162.86 (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Where are the legal sources?
Okay, according to this article, only four countries (New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States) in the world have dependent territories (political entities similar to independent countries but are still somewhat associated with their parent states) while all other territories mentioned in the article are political entities similar to dependent territories but are still considered integral parts of their parent states. I wonder where are the sources which legally distinguish these two groups? What about Jan Mayen, Palmyra Atoll, the three islands of the Caribbean Netherlands, and the five French Overseas Regions? Why are they not included in the second group even though most sources cited do list them as dependent territories? And why is the Åland Islands listed even though most sources cited do not include this region in their lists? This article is so confusing. 2001:8003:9008:1301:E878:24EC:B15E:BEA8 (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if someone added sources. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in the Insular cases that the newly acquired territory of Hawaii was part of the U.S. When most of the territory became the new state of Hawaii, Palmyra did not. Since it is uninhabited, it is administered in the same way as other uninhabited territories that are not part of the U.S. That may be why such sources, such s travel guides, group it with them. TFD (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Australian external territories
I think the Australian external territories should be removed from the list. There is nothing special about these territories, they are integral parts of Australia. Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands use West Australia postcodes, Heard Island and McDonald Islands uses Tasmania postcode, and Norfolk Island uses New South Wales postcode. I think the Australian government created these territories in order to claim a bigger territorial sea and EEZ, they are de facto suburbs of Australia.

Sources:

Christmas Island: https://auspost.com.au/postcode/christmas-island

Cocos (Keeling) Islands: https://auspost.com.au/postcode/cocos-(keeling)-islands

Heard Island: https://auspost.com.au/postcode/heard-island

McDonald Islands: https://auspost.com.au/postcode/mcdonald-islands

Norfolk Island: https://auspost.com.au/postcode/norfolk-island

2001:8003:9008:1301:E05A:E872:BA0:EF47 (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This came up in archives 1 and 2. The fact that Australia provides services to these islands does not incorporate them into Australia. Furthermore, the Australian government uses Christmas Island as a detention center for refugees arrested at sea so that they never enter Australia and therefore do not have the same legal protections. Specifically, because they are not in Australia, they cannot apply for asylum in Australia. TFD (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Link: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/is-australia-a-country-or-a-continent.html
 * According to this website, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory have been given limited self-governing powers by the federal government. Australia's eight other territories (one internal and seven external) are all under the direct control of the federal government. Since these territories are under the direct control of the national government, they are not dependencies or dependent territories. In fact, even the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are more dependency-like areas than them. These Australian external territories are just normal unincorporated areas. 2001:8003:9008:1301:3CC2:B028:D24C:6C22 (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment According to the article, the Australian external territories are included as they are often found in lists of dependent territories, despite having no autonomy. However, the French and Dutch overseas territories are also often found in lists of dependent territories, why aren't they treated the same? The ISO has assigned these territories with their own country codes and UN M49 has included all of them as dependent territories. I reckon we should either include all of them or exclude all of them, not partially include some of them under a vague concept. 2001:8003:9008:1301:4DD7:29E8:4A5D:3BC7 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * External territories are by definition administered by but not part of another country. TFD (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Link: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/territories-regions-cities/territories


 * According the Australian Government, all external territories are under the direct administration of the federal government. There is no difference between them and the Jervis Bay Territory, a mainland/internal territory.


 * Furthermore, it seems to me that Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are subdivisions of the Indian Ocean Territories of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands instead of separate territories. 2001:8003:9008:1301:4DD7:29E8:4A5D:3BC7 (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The difference is that internal territories are part of Australia, while external territories are not. Typically the constitution and all national or federal legislation extend in full to internal territories, while they only extend to external territories if they are specifically mentioned. The degree of self-governance of a territory is wholly irrelevant to whether or not it is part of the parent state. TFD (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Denmark vs. UK
Why are two constituent countries of the Kingdom of Denmark – Greenland and the Faroe Islands (but not Denmark) – included, while none of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom are included? This seems like an arbitrary distinction. Probably Greenland and the Faroes should be removed. Dylanvt (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the term "constituent country" is arbitrary and meaningless in an administrative sense, and the administrative structures of the two countries are entirely different. CMD (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Because they are not the same. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, secure particularly England, are not self-governing republics or autonomous States or arm's length from the UK. They have varying degrees of home rule, but nothing like Faroe Islands' relationship with Denmark. It's stark with England, with no devolution at all, no regional assembly, no English parliament, nothing. From a strict constitutional stand point, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are only considered "separate" by convention, they're not really guaranteed that relationship at all. doktorb wordsdeeds 03:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Does that not make England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland so-called "dependent territories" of the UK? Both Denmark and the UK are included in this List of unitary states with devolution. Should they both be included there, but not here? Dylanvt (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No because per the article they are not "outside the controlling state's integral area." That is, they are all part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In fact, together they make up 100% of the country. TFD (talk)
 * What about Denmark? Are there any legal sources stating that Faroe Islands and Greenland aren't integral parts of Denmark? 2001:8003:9008:1301:E45D:E6E5:BE1A:96D5 (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Netherlands
To me it seems like Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten should be removed from this list. Aren't the four constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands equal? The Netherlands is a lot larger than the other three countries, but other than that, is there any reason they should be listed here? Also, if they should be included, the list at the bottom of this page shows the "sovereign state" for the three countries as the Netherlands, which is a subdivision, not a sovereign state. I think it should be changed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which is a sovereign state.-- angryfishstick1 ( talk ) ( contribs ) 21:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable argument, but in practice is not accepted by the Dutch government or other countries. Coincidentally, I looked up a school in Sint Maarten and couldn't find it in the World Directory of medical schools. It turns out you have to click on a box to get states that were not members of the UN. TFD (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment If Aruba, Curaçao, the Netherlands, and Sint Maarten of the Kingdom of the Netherlands are in the same political structure as England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales of the United Kingdom, then I reckon we should remove them from the list. We need legal experts to comment on this. 2001:8003:9008:1301:E45D:E6E5:BE1A:96D5 (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They're not remotely the same. CMD (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Dependent territory
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Dependent territory's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "jqgc": From United Wa State Army: 2011-10-13, 缅甸佤邦竟然是一个山寨版的中国, 军情观察 From Wa State: 13 October 2011, 缅甸佤邦竟然是一个山寨版的中国, 军情观察 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Northern Ireland
NI has been added and removed a few times now, so I wanted to add a section here for discussion. These are the relevant edit summaries:


 * added 29 Jun 2022 by BlackBony: the same as Åland
 * removed 5 Sep 2022 by 115.178.249.89: does not meet the criteria
 * added 6 Sep 2022 by 2001:ee0:222:53bf:2839:c602:9af2:ddb: "Similar entities" don't have to meet all the criteria for a dependent territory
 * removed 6 Sep 2022 by Chipmunkdavis: Rv, need a source putting them in this sort of list
 * added 6 Sep 2022 by Privybst:
 * removed 6 Sep 2022 by 2001:ee0:4101:771d:85e7:607f:6183:faf2: See other edits
 * added 6 Sep 2022 by Riverbend21: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)

--Lasunncty (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This discussion points to the basic weakness of the article. In most cases, international law makes no distinction between what is part of a country and what is a dependent territory. While domestic law does, there is no consistency between the legal systems of different countries.
 * It's similar to having an article about "good Roman emperors." Certainly Augustus would make the list, while Caligula would not. But Wikipedia editors would never degree on the entire list. That't why Wikipedia has policies against original research and synthesis, which this article clearly violates.
 * TFD (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * At least it's better than our article on Country. CMD (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I should have said the lists sections. How do you list things where there is no agreement in reliable sources about what belongs? TFD (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Dependent territories has a specific legal meaning, many of what is described as dependent territories in this article are not. Specifically the list of countries under the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories (16) are the only remaining dependent territories.  Northern Ireland, Aland islands et al simply shouldn't be in this article.  There are some POV sources that will describe some territories as dependent but effectively we're giving undue credence to what is essentially fringe views.
 * Unfortunately the UN being what it is, the list is incomplete, since it depended on the governing power declaring their dependent territories on admission to the UN. So Tibet et al are not listed, so the list itself is incomplete.  Nevertheless the UN List remains the only internationally recognised authorative source.  I would propose stripping out anything that doesn't relate to that list. WCM email 07:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is also a CIA list which does not coincide with UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Privybst (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So we have different possible lists, depending on what criteria the writers choose to use. The UN list incidentally does not include uninhabited territories. TFD (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So, which source or sources include Northern Ireland? I have not seen Northern Island listed by any source. 2001:8003:9007:8201:91DD:90CA:42B6:96B7 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Rotuma and Rodrigues
Should this list also include Rotuma as a dependency of Fiji and Rodrigues as an autonomous area of Mauritius? little muddy funkster (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Those are a different sort of polity, even though the same words are used. CMD (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate your point in more detail? 2001:8003:913E:5D01:F131:5FC3:17B5:18E6 (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Abyei and Pakistani administered Kashmir
The two polities that make up Pakistani administered Kashmir, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan, are dependent territories of Pakistan that are (are Pakistan's constitution) not integral parts of Pakistan. They thus meet the definition of a "dependent territory" defined in this article and should be included. They are treated as akin to dependent territories on the main list of sovereign states page. Likewise Abyei is a condominium created by an international treaty governed by a joint administrative body appointed by Sudan and South Sudan. It is thus a polity that was created by international agreement with sovereignty limitations and meets the criteria for inclusion. XavierGreen (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I wouldn't support the inclusion of condominiums, otherwise, we should include Antarctica in our list too. You have raised an interesting point about Pakistan. I don't know much about Pakistani politics, we need comments from an expert in order to reach a consensus here. 2001:8003:913E:5D01:F131:5FC3:17B5:18E6 (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, not exactly an expert on the subject but a lot of what OP is saying seems to correct according to what I've been reading. It would appear that Pakistan has not incorporated Kashmir into itself and, at the very least nominally considers it its own thing, even though its hardly the case, being that Kashmir depends on Pakistan in economic and administrative regards. Hell, even the president of Pakistan literally said
 * ”Azad Kashmir has its separate identity with a President and Prime Minister. It is not a province of Pakistan.”, and then his spokeperson replied with ”Pakistan does not claim Kashmir as an integral part. Kashmir is disputed. We however, hope that when Kashmiris are able to exercise their right to make a choice, they would opt for Pakistan”
 * Its such a rare case, all my life ive seen heads of state filling their mouths with cheap speeches of patriotism and how their ownership of x land is righteous, while these fellas are almost like ”eh, itd be cool if they stayed but whatevs” 201.235.236.10 (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hello all. Please remember or take a look at the following policies (specially if you are an experienced editor!): "If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale." Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:EDITWAR
 * WP:CONSENSUS
 * WP:DISPUTE

Åland
Many other administrative subdivision inhabit a special position guaranteed by an international treaty. Dependent territories has a specific legal meaning, the list of countries under the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories (16) are the only remaining inhabited dependent territories. I propose stripping out anything that doesn't relate to that list. I propose to remove Åland from this page. Onlk (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The article for the UN list is United Nations list of non-self-governing territories, which has a list of its 17 entries. It would be good to get a source on this specific legal meaning. CMD (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Åland is not in UN M49 List, not in US Bureau of Intelligence and Research list of Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty, not in CIA lists: and . Entities with only limited unique autonomy, such as the autonomous regions of Portugal, the Canary Islands and the autonomous cities of Spain, Barbuda of Antigua and Barbuda, Nevis of Saint Kitts and Nevis, Zanzibar of Tanzania, and Sabah and Sarawak of Malaysia are also not included. Why do include Åland then? --Onlk (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That green text has nothing to do with Åland, as it is not there for that reason. It is there due to a very old merger with territories under international treaties. I am unsure how this relates to your original post, which was about changing the list to echo the UN Non-Self-Governing Territories list. CMD (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My original proposal is to remove Åland from this page. --Onlk (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Your proposal, as written, was "stripping out anything that doesn't relate to that [UN] list". If you want to make a discussion specifically about Åland, I suggest crafting a new post which specifically discusses Åland. CMD (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree with the proposal to remove Aland, since it isn't by any applicable definition a dependent territory. I have commented previously that this article is a bit of a mess and continues WP:OR and WP:SYN over the definition of a dependent territory. The wooliness of the definition of a dependent territory has perhaps allowed this to persist but its long overdue for a clean up. WCM email 13:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * According to the lead, "A dependent territory, dependent area, or dependency (sometimes referred as an external territory) is a territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a sovereign state, yet remains politically outside the controlling state's integral area."
 * According to its page, "Åland is governed according to the Act on the Autonomy of Åland and international treaties. These laws guarantee the region's autonomy from Finland, which has ultimate sovereignty over them".
 * There seems to be a case for it being a dependent territory. Thinker78  (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Aland is an integral part of Finland and under Finnish sovereignty. No sources describe it as a dependent territory, its inclusion here is partially based upon individual editors interpretation based on the definition of a dependent territory, which is WP:OR and WP:SYN.  As such that isn't ground for inclusion, we should be guided by what sources actually say not by our own interpretation.  And that in a nutshell is what is wrong with the article. WCM email 09:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "[...] we should be guided by what sources actually say not by our own interpretation". Good point. Thinker78  (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess if it doesn't have backing by a reference it can be removed per WP:VERIFY. Thinker78  (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure this sock conversation is a good place to discuss this, but it is quite easy to find sources describing or treating Aland as a dependent territory (eg. ). Aland is at any rate not included in the main list of dependent territories on this page, despite the impression it is in the conversation above. CMD (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It has its own section under Finland. The previous discussion I was involved in had not cites but rather it was editor's interpretation of what a dependent territory was.  Now that someone has provided a cite, I'll withdraw my comment. WCM email 08:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * CU note is the sock of a globally banned user. I would remove all their comments here, but they have already been replied to. They should be given zero weight when determining consensus; I'll leave y'all to figure out what you want to do now.  Girth Summit  (blether)  13:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * HUGE SUPPORT I support the removal of Åland from the list of dependent territories. In the article Regions of Finland, Åland is listed as one of the 19 first-level administrative divisions of Finland (although one with a special status). In my opinion, if a region is listed as one of the first-level administrative divisions of a country, along with other "normal" ones, then it is a special region, not a dependent territory. A dependent territory should be politically outside its administering state's "country proper", not a part of the "country proper".
 * For the same reason, I propose the removal of Svalbard from the list of dependent territories too. Svalbard is an unincorporated area of Norway, not a dependency of Norway. 112.120.10.133 (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Svalbard and Clipperton Island
I propose the removal of Svalbard and Clipperton Island from the list of dependent territories. Both entities are unincorporated areas of their respective administering state, not dependent territories. A dependent territory should be politically outside its administering state's "country proper", not a part of the "country proper". I also support the removal of Åland in the discussion above. 112.120.10.133 (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * All of the territories you mention are already in the "similar entities" section, not the "dependent territories" section. --Lasunncty (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They aren't "similar entities" either. Unincorporated internal areas shouldn't be included in this article at all. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:895F:24B6:B6CE:477E (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They are similar enough. You are being too pedantic. To pretend there is no difference between, say, an island off the coast of mainland France and Clipperton, is unrealistic. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, what exactly is the difference between, say, Corsica and Clipperton Island? To me, the only notable difference is that Corsica has a permanent population while Clipperton Island is uninhabited. According to the article overseas France, Clipperton Island is an overseas "state private property" under the direct authority of the French government. In other words, the island is a part of "France proper". It is not a French dependent territory. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:895F:24B6:B6CE:477E (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of the particular status of Clipperton Island, that is not what private property means. CMD (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The IP is confusing two different defintions of unicorporated: (1) not formed into a legal corporation (such as a municiplity) and (2) not included as part of a whole.
 * While the article they link to uses the first definition, this article uses the second. Under the second definition, an unincorporated territory is "politically outside its administering state's "country proper", not a part of the "country proper"". IOW it has not been incorporated into the country proper. It may or may not have a local government.
 * TFD (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The West Bank and Gaza?
Should this article list the West Bank and Gaza as Dependent Territories? Per the Gaza article: "The territories of Gaza and the West Bank are separated from each other by Israeli territory. Both fell under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, but the Strip is governed by Hamas, a militant, fundamentalist Islamic organization, which came to power in the last-held elections in 2006." Rxtreme (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * A dependent territory must be legally external to the metropolitan state, which in turn must exercise control over it. How does this apply? TFD (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The West Bank is directly controlled by the State of Palestine, the Gaza Strip is controlled by a rebel militant group (Hamas). Both territories are integral parts of the State of Palestine, they are not dependent territories. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:ACFE:7B23:904F:A674 (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)