Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive 13

Questions

 * 1) Do you believe the  Islamic State should be included in the list?
 * 2) Do you believe the  Donetsk People's Republic should be included in the list?
 * 3) Do you believe the  Lugansk People's Republic should be included in the list?
 * 4) Do you believe the criteria for inclusion should be updated to include these or other states?

Answer with either Support inclusion or Oppose inclusion, followed by your reasons, and then your signature.

Do NOT participate if your reasoning is that you personally believe these states should/shouldn't exist.

Support

 * 1) Support inclusion As according to the table I created above and many previous discussions. (Jan-Apr • Jun • Jul)   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 17:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no point in denying the fact that the Islamic State is a de facto sovereign entity    claiming statehood  since we have many sources saying so.    [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 22:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And there's no point lying about what the sources actually say, because they're all publicly accessible and anyone who actually reads them can see that they no such thing. What they actually says is that there is the "prospect" of a state, that they have a "unique claim to statehood" and that it is "on its way to controlling a quasi-state".  TDL (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "...and the inviolable sovereignty that this implies." "...a de facto sovereign jihadi-controlled zone now exists..." "...exercising de facto sovereignty over a territory, even if unrecognized by the international community." Need more quotes or sources?   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 23:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is no longer a state in name only. It is a physical, if extra-legal, reality on the ground. Unacknowledged by the world community, ISIS has carved a de facto state in the borderlands of Syria and Iraq." "The militants have already asserted a de facto Islamic state in those areas, establishing their own courts, schools and services.".    [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 00:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you need sources which actually support your claim, not random quotes from sources which say something entirely different. Just because the words "ISIS" and "sovereign" are used in the same sentence, doesn't mean the source says that ISIS is a sovereign state.  You have to actually read and comprehend what the entire sentence says, not what you wish it said.  Since you don't seem able or willing to do so for yourself, I'll do it for you:
 * "ISIS’s unique claim to statehood and the inviolable sovereignty that this implies" - All that this says is that ISIS claims to be a state, and that this claim implies they claim sovereignty over the territory. Of course this is true, that is afterall just the definition of what a declaration of independence is.  But this certainly doesn't say that it actually is a sovereign state, just that they claim to be.
 * "ISIS is on its way to controlling a quasi-state, exercising de facto sovereignty over a territory" - If something is on it's way to becoming something, then by definition it isn't yet that thing.
 * "de facto sovereign jihadi-controlled zone now exists" - This isn't a list of sovereign jihadi-controlled zones, it is a list of sovereign states. Nowhere does this sources say ISIS is a sovereign state.
 * - Interesting, but WP:BLOGS.
 * "The militants have already asserted a de facto Islamic state" - This is a list of sovereign states, not islamic states. Do all islamic states need to be sovereign states? TDL (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It being a "de facto sovereign jihadi-controlled zone", "de facto Islamic state", or being "on its way to controlling a a quasi-state" doesn't change the reality of the de facto sovereignty the Islamic State holds.
 * "The Islamic State has de facto control of a whole swathe of territory stretching from eastern Syria to the environs of Baghdad and last month declared a caliphate..."
 * "After its recent advances through northern Iraq, ISIL now controls approximately 35,000 square miles — according to The Economist, giving ISIL de facto control over 6 million people."
 * "Residents say ISIL has had de facto control for months and the only difference is that now it is official."
 * "Therefore, the key point is that the “Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham” is no longer the name of a movement, or the expression of an aspiration. As of now, it is a descriptive term applying to a de facto sovereign space, taking in a large swath of western Iraq and eastern and northern Syria."
 * "Until recently, had anyone said that in 2014 a de facto sovereign al-Qa’ida state would emerge, absorbing large swathes of western Iraq and parts of Syria, he would have been called a lunatic. But this is something that has come to pass to nearly everyone’s surprise."
 * "The possession by Al-Qaeda-linked groups of a de facto sovereign area in Syria is itself a matter of deep concern for Israel and the west."
 * "...ISIS now exercises de facto sovereignty with many attributes of government, such as keeping order and providing basic services."
 * I hope more sources help.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 22:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well if a state is not suzerain or a vassal to another, it would be sovereign under the ordinary meaning of the word state in terms of international law. Otherwise it would not be a state.XavierGreen (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support inclusion The Islamic state has a hold on territory. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support inclusion Considering the strong foothold the Islamic State has, it looks like they are here to stay. They are also making their voices heard whether we like it or not. It's only matter of time before their sovereignty is eventually recognized at this point. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support inclusion Being that they have a stable population (with a some emmigration due to the crisis), an embassy, a military, a capital, a stable economy, etc. I think it's time. To leave them off this list could be viewed as biased. I also support Supersaiyen's points. Newyorkbrad has a good point as well too though. Will the critera be met soon? Yes. Are they going to be conquered, over-run, over-taken or just die off? No. It's time now in my opinion. For more evidnece see Talk:List of states with limited recognition. Rightswatcher (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support inclusion They have a stable military, economy, government, population etc., and they have quite the hold of their lands. It's only a matter of time until they're officially a sovereign state. Petrikov (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support inclusion They are a stable state. --maxval (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support inclusion Though i am opposed to the existence of this polity, an objective political scientist would find that it satisfies the declarative theory of statehood as set forth in the Montevideo convention and would include it in a list of sovereign states under that theory.XavierGreen (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, an objective political scientist wouldn't find it so, because they would understand that the declarative theory of statehood as set forth in Article 1 in the Montevideo convention is mitigated by Article 11 which prohibits the use of military force or coercion to establish a state, the intent is to distinguish between sovereign and puppet states to make sure that marionette governments do not get international recognition. --Nug (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If objective political scientists would come to XavierGreen's conclusion, he would be able to cite one. He's made this argument several times before and he has never been able to provide any such cite.  It doesn't matter what XavierGreen thinks sources ought to say, it matters what they do say, and none of them come to the conclusion he reaches. Kahastok talk 21:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support inclusion per Talk:List of states with limited recognition elmasmelih  14:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support inclusion and I'm really tired of explaining why. 3bdulelah (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose inclusion Unrecognized by anyone, and too soon. Reevaluate in a couple of months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that Somaliland is unrecognized by anyone but it's included in the list. And how is this too soon knowing that the group started in 2003, and the original Islamic State of Iraq was proclaimed in 2006, while the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant declared independence at the beginning of this year (it was the caliphate that was later established)?   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 01:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That ISIS was proclaimed years ago is irrelevant. The Principality of Sealand was proclaimed decades ago.  ISIS's claims to statehood is the relevant issue, and that is a recent development.  Wiki is WP:NOTNEWS: we must wait for sources to reach the conclusion that it is a sovereign state rather than rushing to make our own unsourced guesses at what the sources may one day say.  TDL (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "...and the inviolable sovereignty that this implies." "...a de facto sovereign jihadi-controlled zone now exists..." "...exercising de facto sovereignty over a territory, even if unrecognized by the international community." "The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is no longer a state in name only. It is a physical, if extra-legal, reality on the ground. Unacknowledged by the world community, ISIS has carved a de facto state in the borderlands of Syria and Iraq." "The militants have already asserted a de facto Islamic state in those areas, establishing their own courts, schools and services."
 * I only mentioned the time ISIL was originally proclaimed since Newyorkbrad said it was "too soon". Also, do you think these quotes help with reaching a conclusion?  [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 01:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not any more than the first umpteen times you quoted them, and not at all if you can't actually understand what they say. TDL (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose inclusion - the table above does not support inclusion. The provided sources simply report that some territory is de facto controlled by this faction. Other speculate that it might become a state in the future - but see WP:CRYSTAL.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Some sources state it's already a de facto state, so this wouldn't be speculation related to WP:CRYSTAL.    [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 01:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose inclusion - This is a list of sovereign states under international law. No one has yet to provided any sources which say that ISIS is a sovereign state under international law.  Claiming that they are, in the absence of any sources, is WP:OR.  TDL (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose inclusion -- As with all affirmations of reality, the onus is on the contender. The weight of opinions for inclusion include irrelevant statements of fact such as the physical possession of territory, the opportunity for ideological projection, and the dubious prediction of modest longevity. The rest are factually incorrect: the presences of a military, a diplomatic catalyst, the stability in economy and demography, and an appeal to fairness. The corpus of a nation is the statute of laws manifesting themselves into a system of government. This reality, regardless of international disregard, does not yet exist in the swath of land under the nominal control of the ISIS religious militia. If and when this changes we should reexamine the issue. GraniteSand (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong oppose There is already a section of "Groups which control territory" in the article List of active rebel groups which is the appropriate one to include these groups, and where they are included. To be a sovereign state, even with limited recognition (List of states with limited recognition) they have to 1 - satisfy the declarative theory of statehood or 2 - be recognized as a state by at least on UN member state, as it's described in that article, and those conditions are not satisfied by neither entity (though Novorossiya is recognized by South Ossetia, but this one is not a UN member state) Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Constitutive Theory itself doesn't call for recognition from UN member states; that's been changed by Wikipedia editors for the criteria. This is why changing the criteria for inclusion (specifically the second part) has been proposed below.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 23:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it's more complicated than that. Recognition by a single state doesn't create a de jure state.  See this which says "Under the so-called "constitutive" theory, a territory is not a state unless it is generally recognized as such by other states".  Or this which says "there is no clear explanation of what level of recognition actually establishes de jure statehood within the international community.  Abkhazia and South Ossetia, for example, are recognized by four UN member states but are still genereally considered de facto states by international bodies."   TDL (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose inclusion pending some evidence that they meet the inclusion criteria, i.e. that says they satisfy the declarative theory or are recognised by a UN member state. Per WP:NOR, Wikipedia should never be the first independent source to come to the conclusion that a state exists according to the declarative theory as is proposed.  The only evidence we have that analyses international law in terms of the declarative theory actually comes to the opposite conclusion (that ISIS does not meet the criteria). Kahastok talk 07:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We also have this which explains what a state is and how the Islamic State has a legitimate claim to statehood.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 12:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read that sources? It certainly does not say that "the Islamic State has a legitimate claim to statehood".  What it actually says is that "they have as good a claim to statehood in the area as either the governments of Iraq or Syria", but they also say "Syrian or Iraqi governments represent states in a U.N. council meeting much more than they represent actual existing states in Mosul, in Tikrit, in Fallujah, or in ar-Raqqah."   So saying ISIS is more of a state than a non-existing state isn't all that convincing.  TDL (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I find my point stands. Soffredo's source does not mention the declarative theory.  The only source that analyses the situation according to the declarative theory of statehood - as required by our inclusion criteria - concludes that ISIS is not a state under that theory.  If we included ISIS, we would be the first independent source to analyse the declarative theory and conclude that ISIS satisfies it, which is not allowed per WP:NOR. Kahastok talk 17:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is why changing the criteria for inclusion has been proposed below?   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 01:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So you should think we should call things formally sovereign states regardless of whether anyone actually believes them to be formally sovereign states or not? Kahastok talk 21:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose inclusion - as has been pointed out, This is a list of sovereign states under international law. There are other articles where this may belong but not this one. If there are others that are in this list that don't belong then remove them, they can't be used as a rationale for adding this. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose inclusion - there is no evidence that ISIS/ISIL recognizes international law. Consequently, it is unsuitable for the page. It may be suitable for the list of excluded entities under List of states with limited recognition, though. Ladril (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment A state only has to be recognized by one other legitimate state. ISIS recognizes sharia law (which is valid legal system) and would not likely acknowledge or concede to "recognizes international law" at this time.Rightswatcher (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not in fact recognised by any. Kahastok talk 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that Somaliland has no recognition too, but it's included in the List. Using this as a reason doesn't really pass.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 23:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We can cite that Somaliland meets the declarative theory. You've been given sources that demonstrate this before.  You cannot do this for ISIS. Kahastok talk 21:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "A state only has to be recognized by one other legitimate state" is what the constitutive theory is. Note that this doesn't matter to most editors here, as they see UN membership as a requirement for "legitimate state"s. South Ossetia is included on the List, so wouldn't that make it a "legitimate state"? Apparently not. South Ossetia has recognized both the LNR and DNR, but here we are having a poll about including them or not.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, since you have argued that ISIS should be on this list, then you must claim that ISIS is a "legitimate state". You also claim that ISIS hosts an embassy of the "Emirate of Aleppo", and thus we will be forced to add the "Emirate of Aleppo" to the list since they have diplomatic relations with ISIS.  TDL (talk)
 * Maybe read my proposal on changing the criteria for inclusion below?   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 23:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose inclusion, the four qualifications of "a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." is not applicable if those qualifications where "obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily". Given the fact that the leaders of ISIL are using force to impose the Islamic State on the territory of Syria and Iraq disqualifies it in terms of the declarative theory of statehood. --Nug (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we say the same for all de facto states included on the List as they are results of war?   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 22:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your hyperactive presence in a set of polls you've started may be doing you more harm than good. When requesting comment or starting a poll it's generally considered good form to not try to argue with everyone who stops by to participate. It's off-putting and gives the impression of defensive desperation. Maybe take a break and let some outside consensus form. Just a thought; take it how you will. GraniteSand (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose inclusion because is a) unrecognised, b) does not meet criteria of statehood.--Yopie (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose inclusion, this is the rebel group not a state. Aotearoa (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose inclusion, the proposed inclusion is at least premature. IS is so far to have all attributes of a sovereign state, it is still rather rebel group. Let's return to the issue a few months after. Jan CZ (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose inclusion, let's set a certain period of updating this list (annually, for example) so that we don't have to change something each time some insurgents grab a town or two somewhere in the world. In case of IS(IS) they could conceivably a) take control of Iraq, b) take control of Syria, c) be bombed out of existence and d) hold on to the land they control; in each case the consequences for this list are different. Alæxis¿question? 12:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose inclusion - This is absurd. Not even those guys believe it. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments
Question -- Several editors have characterized ISIS's condition with the qualifier "stable". In light of the rapidly shifting situation in Syria and Iraq I'm wondering what the litmus those editors are employing to decide on stability and, specifically, what role that plays in their crediting ISIS with being a sovereign state. GraniteSand (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Stable: it maintains stable, relatively permanent control over its territory. --maxval (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant as Wikipedians' original analysis of a proposed state's stability does not form part of criteria for inclusion. Kahastok talk 17:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean, the Islamic State has established offices and an embassy, so I think it's safe to call it "stable" to some extant.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 22:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What souces say they have established an embassy? TDL (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * “In Raqqa, ISIS has offices for everything you can imagine: health, education, security, Islamic aid, tribal relations management, and even an embassy of the emirate of Aleppo,” (Source)
 * Maybe you should read what people are saying when participating in a discussion? The quote and article have been linked before.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 23:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, here's another source stating the Islamic State has already established "their own courts, schools and services." As I said before, the state really does seem "stable" to some extant.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 00:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And maybe before you make accusations, you should get your facts straight? That quote has never once been included on this talk page.  You linked to it in your table but never actually mentioned it.  Given all the WP:TL;DR WP:IDHT filled with bogus info you post, you shouldn't be shocked that people have started ignoring all your nonsense.
 * So basically your argument is that ISIS is a sovereign state because they established an embassy with another non-existant state?  Of course that is a ridiculous argument.  Look at all the embassies that Sealand has: !!!   TDL (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Islamic State is a soveriegn state because it satisfys the declarative theory of statehood. No where within the standard definition of the declarative theory (ie as laid out in the Montevideo convention) does the word stable come into play. Also whether or not the Islamic State carries out relations is not an issue, rather whether or not it has a capacity to have relations. Objectively in the modern world that criteria is relatively meaningless, anyone can sign a treaty and isis has carried out relations with other rebel groups.XavierGreen (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet nobody can provide a source that claims that it satisfies the declarative theory of statehood. So far as we can tell, the only people on the entire planet who think ISIS meets the declarative theory are Wikipedia editors.  There is not a single academic, journalist, lawyer or other expert that has concluded that the requirements are satisfied.  If it were as obvious as you suggest, such experts would be trivial to find and yet in the last six months nobody has found one. Kahastok talk 21:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why my sourced information is "bogus", but alright? 22:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

New Source A new article titled "The Islamic State and the International Politics of Statehood in the Middle East" has been published. It describes the Islamic State as showing some attributes of statehood. Throughout the article, it calls the Islamic State a "de facto state", "unrecognized state", "intermediary bod[y]", and by the end, simply a "state".  [  Soffredo  ]    23:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Another valiant effort at cherrypicking quotes and misrepresentation, but a quick look at the source reveals the truth. The article actually says "One possibility is to think of the Islamic State as a ‘de facto state’" and then goes on to say "Rather than consider them unrecognised states, another option that is potentially more useful would be to consider them as intermediary bodies, state-like in some respects, but not in others."  The entire premise of the article is that ISIS is something entirely new, and not a traditional state.  TDL (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Note - According to Soffredo, the Islamic State claims to hosts an embassy of the "Emirate of Aleppo", which was recently declared. Since the Islamic State and the Emirate of Aleppo have diplomatic relations, we will be forced to add them to this list of we add ISIS. TDL (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't have sources calling them sovereign, unlike the Islamic State. And South Ossetia recognizing the DNR and LNR would be different, as South Ossetia is recognized by 4 UN members. See my proposal for changing the criteria for inclusion below. And it's not according to me that the Islamic State hosts an embassy, it's according to the source I've provided.  [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 22:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support inclusion As according to the table I created above and many previous discussions.    [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 17:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support inclusion They are being supported by a superpower (Russia). Just like Crimea, it looks like they will eventually succeed in becoming independant or part of the Russian Federation; in fact, you might even argue that they already are. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support inclusion They are a stable state. --maxval (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support inclusion Satisfies the declarative theory and the constitutive theory. An objective political scientist would include it in a list of sovereign states which what this list purports to be.XavierGreen (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. An objective political scientist would understand that the declarative theory of statehood as set forth in Article 1 in the Montevideo convention is mitigated by Article 11 which prohibits the use of military force or coercion to establish a state, the intent is to distinguish between sovereign and puppet states to make sure that marionette governments do not get international recognition. --Nug (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If objective political scientists would come to XavierGreen's conclusion, he would be able to cite one. He's made this argument several times before and he has never been able to provide any such cite.  It doesn't matter what XavierGreen thinks sources ought to say, it matters what they do say, and none of them come to the conclusion he reaches. Kahastok talk 21:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support inclusion per Talk:List of states with limited recognition and Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 10 elmasmelih  14:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose inclusion Barely recognized by anyone, exceptionally fluid and unsettled situation, and the existence of the state appears to be largely for propaganda purposes (this is not a fait accompi in the same way the annexation of Crimea is). Reevaluate in a couple of months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose inclusion The case here is even weaker than for the Islamic state above as essentially no sources are provided to even try and buttress the claim. And arguing "per many previous discussions" (What discussions? Where? Why should we care about them?) is specious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - This is a list of sovereign states under international law.  No one has yet to provide any sources which say that the Donetsk PR is a sovereign state under international law.  Claiming that they are, in the absence of any sources, is WP:OR.  TDL (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Donetsk is recognized both by South Ossetia and the LNR, so it is a sovereign state in some level of international law.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 12:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * According to your personal opinion but not according to any known sources. If you want to argue that it is a sovereign state under international law then show us sources that say that rather than telling us that it is so.  TDL (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose inclusion - This is a list of sovereign states under international law, and the DNR is a wholly unrecognized sate. Furthermore, if we are to discuss 'sovereignty', then the DNR holds no sovereignty. It has no government functions, its claimed territory is receding by the day, and has no citizenry.  Further, it is a member of the "New Russia" federation, which makes New Russia the sovereign of the DNR, which is just a province. Even their soldiers fly the confederate flag rather than the DNR flag these days. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 04:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You obviously aren't informed on how the New Russia federation works. Similar to the Union State, it's simply a confederation between the DNR and LNR. They are still separate states acting on their own. Know what you're saying before you make your reasoning, maybe? Also, there is some sort of "citizenry" as people already have DNR passports.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 12:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the DNR isn't a "wholly unrecognized state" as it is recognized by both the LNR and South Ossetia.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 23:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose inclusion for the same reasons that I expressed above, concerning to the Islamic State.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose inclusion pending some evidence that they meet the inclusion criteria, i.e. that says they satisfy the declarative theory or are recognised by a UN member state. Per WP:NOR, Wikipedia should never be the first independent source to come to the conclusion that a state exists according to the declarative theory as is proposed, and South Ossetia is not a UN member state. Kahastok talk 07:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * South Ossetia recognizing the DNR and LNR despite not being a UN member is why a change to the criteria for inclusion has been proposed below.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 23:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And I objected to that proposal in detail below. Given the evidence here, I see no reason why we would feel the need to change the criteria to ensure that they would be included.  Indeed, I would consider such a change to be a fairly serious violation of WP:NPOV, given that the claim that they are sovereign is such a tiny minority view among both the academic community and the international community. Kahastok talk 21:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose inclusion as per my comments above. And Kahastok and Black Future. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Black Future's post is incorrect, as it shows they don't know how Novorossiya (New Russia) works or the fact that a sort of citizenship has been established. See my comment.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 22:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose inclusion, the four qualifications of "a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." is not applicable if those qualifications where "obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily". Given the fact that the leaders of this puppet state are citizens of another state, Russia, which is also directly and indirectly using coercive measures and force to impose it on the territory of Ukraine disqualifies it in terms of the declarative theory of statehood. --Nug (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose inclusion because is a) unrecognised, b) does not meet criteria of statehood.--Yopie (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose inclusion, this is the rebel group not a state. Aotearoa (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose inclusion, let's set a certain period of updating this list (annually, for example) so that we don't have to change something each time some insurgents grab a town or two somewhere in the world. Alæxis¿question? 12:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support inclusion As according to the table I created above and many previous discussions.    [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 17:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Lugansk People's Republic is even forming their own football club and competing against FK Novi Sad. (1)   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 01:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Then go add it to List of men's national association football teams. But having a national team doesn't make you a sovereign state.  Just ask Scotland.  TDL (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support inclusion Just like Crimea, they are being supported by a superpower (Russia) and will eventually succeed. This is not the first time this happened and it most likely won't be the last. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support inclusion They are a stable state. --maxval (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support inclusion Satisfies the declarative theory and the constitutive theory. An objective political scientist would include it in a list of sovereign states which what this list purports to be.XavierGreen (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. An objective political scientist would understand that the declarative theory of statehood as set forth in Article 1 in the Montevideo convention is mitigated by Article 11 which prohibits the use of military force or coercion to establish a state, the intent is to distinguish between sovereign and puppet states to make sure that marionette governments do not get international recognition. --Nug (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If objective political scientists would come to XavierGreen's conclusion, he would be able to cite one. He's made this argument several times before and he has never been able to provide any such cite.  It doesn't matter what XavierGreen thinks sources ought to say, it matters what they do say, and none of them come to the conclusion he reaches. Kahastok talk 21:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * States have been created through coercion and force since they first were created some 7-8000 years ago. To suggest that a state cannot be created through such means is a joke. The very essence of the first multicity states in Mesopotamia was one forged through conquest, which by its very nature constitutes coercion and force.XavierGreen (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Dude, are you kidding? The concept of "sovereign state" didn't even exist 7000 years ago in ancient Mesopotamia. It was the Peace of Westphalia of the 17th century that established the current world order and the notion of a sovereign state free from external interference. Puppet regimes set up by external actors don't qualify as sovereign states, whereas internal regimes set up by internal actors do qualify as sovereign states. Both could use force, but the former is disqualified because of the involvement of an external actor. --Nug (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A puppet regime can none the less be a state, hence the term puppet state. Northern Cyprus is in essence a puppet state, and is included in this list. As for the dawn of statehood, one merely needs to look at the Roman Empire to disprove your claim that statehood dawned from the peace of westphalia. There had been strong centralized states for several millenia before the thirty years war. Egypt, Sumer, Akkad, Assyria Babylon, the Selucid Empire ect.XavierGreen (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are lots of states that shouldn't be included in this list. A puppet regime can be a state, but not a sovereign state, because "sovereignty" means the exercise supreme independent authority and that cannot happen with the presence of a external puppet master pulling the strings. And this is supposed to be a list of sovereign states as defined by the Montevideo convention, not a list of puppet states, ancient city states or empire states. --Nug (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support inclusion per Talk:List of states with limited recognition and Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 10 elmasmelih  14:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose inclusion Barely recognized by anyone, exceptionally fluid and unsettled situation, and the existence of the state appears to be largely for propaganda purposes (this is not a fait accompi in the same way the annexation of Crimea is). Reevaluate in a couple of months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose inclusion and this one is even weaker than the Donetsk one. Per Kahastok's more accurate table.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose inclusion - This is a list of sovereign states under international law.  No one has yet to provide any sources which say that the Lugansk PR is a sovereign state under international law.  Claiming that they are, in the absence of any sources, is WP:OR.  TDL (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose inclusion - This is a list of sovereign states under international law, and the LNR is a wholly unrecognized sate. Furthermore, if we are to discuss 'sovereignty', then the LNR holds no sovereignty. It has no government functions, its claimed territory is receding by the day, and has no citizenry. Further, it is a member of the "New Russia" federation, which makes New Russia the sovereign of the LNR, which is just a province. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 04:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose inclusion for the same reasons that I expressed above, concerning to the Islamic State.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Besides that, in that case you'd also have to include, for instance Al-Shabaab, and eventually the Principality of Sealand, Principality of Hutt River, so on. Concerning to Novorossiya, the only particular aspect that differentiates it from the others is that in fact it's recognized by one state with limited recognition, which is South Ossetia, not recognized by the UN.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Al-Shabaab doesn't claim statehood, while Sealand and Hutt River are widely considered micronations. So we really wouldn't have to include them now would we?   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 23:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not? Bear in mind that the reason we currently don't include micronations is the same as the reason we don't include Donetsk and Luhansk. Kahastok talk 21:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Donetsk and Lugansk aren't considered micronations. The article already has a note saying "Entities considered to be micronations are not included." so we wouldn't have to worry about them.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 22:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose inclusion pending some evidence that they meet the inclusion criteria, i.e. that says they satisfy the declarative theory or are recognised by a UN member state. Per WP:NOR, Wikipedia should never be the first independent source to come to the conclusion that a state exists according to the declarative theory as is proposed, and South Ossetia is not a UN member state. Kahastok talk 07:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose inclusion as per my comments above.  Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose inclusion, the four qualifications of "a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." is not applicable if those qualifications where "obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily". Given the fact that the leaders of this puppet state are citizens of another state, Russia, which is also directly and indirectly using coercive measures and force to impose it on the territory of Ukraine, disqualifies it in terms of the declarative theory of statehood. --Nug (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose inclusion because is a) unrecognised, b) does not meet criteria of statehood.--Yopie (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose inclusion, this is the rebel group not a state. Aotearoa (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose inclusion, let's set a certain period of updating this list (annually, for example) so that we don't have to change something each time some insurgents grab a town or two somewhere in the world. Alæxis¿question? 12:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) First Proposal Donetsk and Lugansk both received recognition by South Ossetia, but weren't put into the List of states with limited recognition under the "Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members" section. We shouldn't let any sort of recognition allow a state to be included (for example, if Transnistria were to recognize Sealand). However, I think states recognized by those listed under the "Non-UN member states recognised by at least one UN member" section should be included. If Vatican City were to recognize a state, should we really hesitate to include it because Vatican isn't a UN member? Would we dismiss Taiwan's decision to recognize a state despite its own de facto and de jure international recognition? We should at least include states recognized by UN observers (Palestine & Vatican) and/or states who participate in UN specialized agencies (Cook Islands, Kosovo, Niue, & Taiwan). These states are highly respected in the international community and their diplomatic relations shouldn't be ignored. The second criteria should read something like "recognized by one UN member or observer", "recognized by a state in the UN system", or "recognized by a state recognized by at least one UN member". This change would allow for Donetsk and Lugansk to be added. As for the Islamic State, we could use the result of the poll (if in favor) and the many sources talking about its de facto sovereignty.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 17:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Second Proposal The Islamic State has many sources calling it a "de facto state" or something along similar lines. If an entity has so many sources provided, wouldn't it be fair to include it in the List?   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 01:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, but since this claim isn't actually true the point is irrelevant. TDL (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See the sources I've provided above.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 23:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support But it should be on a different section from the internationally recognized sovereign states perhaps with Soffredo's table above. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support A modification of current criteria to remove specific mention of the declarative convention, but to still require extensive description by academic sources of the entity as a state --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support A modification that would allow the inclusion of any de facto state. 3bdulelah (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose I don't think further tinkering with the criteria is going to be productive. It is a matter of applying the criteria giving due weight to an entity's legal status and its practical-world status, as reported in reliable sources and interpreted through a lens of common sense. And no matter what rules we write, there will always be a borderline case somewhere. I've been watching the debates on this page for eight years and I fear that another rewriting of the recognition criteria is simply not a productive use of the community's limited time and resources. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What "limited time" do we have? Fixing the criteria could fix many problems, making it so that we'd have to spend less time discussing and arguing on talk pages?   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 01:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose There's no point to this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - There is nothing wrong with the current criteria, which accurately reflects what sources say on the matter.  While the suggestion that perhaps we should include states recognized by UN Observers as well is a reasonable one, it makes the criteria more complicated with little to no benefit.  Including second order fringe states, which are themselves only recognized by fringe states, opens the door to all kinds non-states.  I fail to see any difference between South Ossetia recognizing DPR/LPR and Transnistria recognizing Sealand, which Soffredo tries to argue above.  TDL (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Soffredo seems to imply that adding UN observers or members of UN specialised agencies would mean including Donetsk and Luhansk. It would not (as South Ossetia falls into neither camp). Kahastok talk 07:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I know it wouldn't include them, I just think we should change the criteria now to avoid pointless arguments in the future.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 12:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly, based on the last few months, the way to stop arguments in the future is for you not to start them. Kahastok talk 17:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I already expressed the reasons above, concerning to the Islamic State.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose.  Nothing wrong with the current rules.  Once you've got a purported state where no academic, expert or journalist has ever analysed international law and concluded a state exists, and which is recognised by no UN member, you're pretty much by definition including based on a tiny minority POV and thus failing WP:NPOV. Kahastok talk 07:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Current criteria for inclusion should not be changed. --maxval (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose A bad idea which would only create more problems and could lead to us proclaiming sovereign states that not generally recognised. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Read my proposal for changing the criteria. I suggested we change the second part of the criteria, so that states recognized by members/observers in the UN system or states already recognized by at least one UN member could easily be included. For example, we could add the DNR and LNR since South Ossetia recognize both, and South Ossetia is recognized by 4 UN members.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 00:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per WP:CREEP. The current criteria is perfectly adequate. --Nug (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, the current criteria are better then proposed ones. Aotearoa (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, no reason to make the criteria more complex. Especially the "recognized by a state recognized by at least one UN member" is counter-productive, opening the field for unforeseen future problems. Would the next (recursive) suggestion be "recognized by a state that is recognized by a state recognized by at least one UN member"? --T*U (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, for the same reasons as the previous editor. Alæxis¿question? 12:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

 * Proposal: Should Niue and the Cook Islands be included, since their statute seems to be similar to some associated states of USA in the Pacific Ocean, and they might eventually satisfy the conditions that are exposed for the inclusion in the List of states with limited recognition?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Niue and the Cook Islands are already on the List. You can find the discussion here.  [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 12:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Cook Islands and Niue are included on the list because it was demonstrated that each is "recognised as a sovereign state by at least one UN member state". IIRC it was the Netherlands and Japan in the case of the Cook Islands, and China in the case of Niue.  It was (and remains) a close call, particularly in the case of Niue.  Their similarity in status to the associated states of the US was not the persuasive factor.
 * The issue in their case is that they are deliberately ambiguous as to whether they are sovereign or not. There is no significant RL dispute as to their status - it is universally accepted that they are whatever they say they are.  They're just not clear what that is. Kahastok talk 17:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I presumed they were not in this list, since they're not listed in the List of states with limited recognition article.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The emphasis there has always been on active non-recognition, i.e. genuinely refusing to accept that a given claimed state is legally constituted. There are many cases where one state technically does not recognise another solely because the paperwork was never filled in (Foreign relations of Montenegro has a list of 20-odd who haven't got around to recognising Montenegro yet) but by their nature they tend to be nigh-on impossible to source. Kahastok talk 21:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Once a state has joined the UN, dejure they are recognized by all the states that voted for them to be included .XavierGreen (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not true. Many states that voted for Palestine to be admitted into the UN as an observer have yet to recognize it.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 01:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Palestine is not a member of the UN it is an observer, but voting to admit it as an observer state is a dejure recognition of its international personality as a state within international law. Signing a multilateral treaty between states constitutes recognition under international law, thus the states that voted to admit palestine as an observer to the UN have dejure recognized palestine as a state (those that have abstained or voted no have not). Now whether or not de facto they recognize palestine is another matter entirely.XavierGreen (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you go ahead and try to include those states over at International recognition of the State of Palestine? The Czech Republic is included, despite not de facto recognizing the State of Palestine anymore.    [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 23:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree you make good points. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Section of inclusion criteria is original research
The inclusion criteria originally held that states which satisfy the constitutive theory of statehood were to be included in the list, it has since been changed removing the constitutive theory and instead replacing it with language stating that states recognized by UN members are to be included. The criteria that a state be recognized by a UN state is original research. There are only two theories under modern international law regarding what constitutes a state, the declarative theory and the constitutive theory. As such the criteria should reflect these two theories in order to avoid original research problems.XavierGreen (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would add that the current criteria are biased in that they exclude two polities which would be considered states under the consitutive theory, Luhansk and Donetsk. Both are recognized by South Ossetia, a state which we have sources that indicate meets both the Declarative and Consitutive theories. As South Ossetia is not a member of the UN, these two polities are currently excluded under the criteria despite meeting one of the two theories of statehood within political science. The current criteria are discriminatory against states which are not members of the United Nations. Thus if Vatican City recognized Luhansk it would not be included but if Tuvalu recognized it, it would be included. The current criteria in regards to including "states recognized by UN members" is baseless within the two standard theories on the issue and are original research and should be changed to reflect the actual constitutive theory.XavierGreen (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No objective political scientist would claim that Luhansk or Donetsk meet the constitutive theory of statehood. Recognition by a single state doesn't create a de jure state.  See for example this which says "Under the so-called "constitutive" theory, a territory is not a state unless it is generally recognized as such by other states".  Or this which says "there is no clear explanation of what level of recognition actually establishes de jure statehood within the international community.  Abkhazia and South Ossetia, for example, are recognized by four UN member states but are still generally considered de facto states by international bodies."  (Note that they don't even consider recognition by Nagorno-Karabakh or Transnistria as relevant to the question.)  It certainly can't be argued that ISIS is "generally recognized".


 * The Islamic State claims to hosts an embassy of the "Emirate of Aleppo", which was recently declared. Since this implies that the Islamic State and the Emirate of Aleppo have established diplomatic relations, by your logic we would be forced to add them to this list if we add ISIS.  Does that make sense to you?  I agree that the current wording isn't perfect, but your suggestion would lead to even less sensible results.  However, I'm open to alternatives.  If we want to follow the sources, we should include states which are "generally recognized as such by other states".  The difficulty arises in how we define "generally recognized".  We could take it to mean recognition by a majority of states?  But we still have a problem: majority of which states?  Majority of UN members?  Then we are right back to your screams of "bias"!  Any other ideas on how we could define "generally recognized" in a objective way?  TDL (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We already include states that are recognized by only one other state, Northern Cyprus for example. As for the "Emirate of Aleppo", i dont know what exactly is being refered to as the sources you are citing seem to regard two different things. The Al-Nusra front emirate was not actually declared, various media web sites just jumped the gun and said it was.[].XavierGreen (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Northern Cyprus qualifies under the declarative theory. See for example "The TRNC possess all the necessary qualifications for statehood as enumerated in the Montevideo Convention" or "it may be unrecognized but is a de facto state meeting the international law criteria of statehood."
 * Regardless, if you want to bring the inclusion criteria in line with sources, we need to make the recognition criteria more stringent rather than more lenient, since under no reasonable reading of the phrase "generally recognized" is 1 recognition sufficient. TDL (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As I proposed before, I think it would be best to make the second part of the criteria for inclusion be "recognized by a state recognized by at least one UN member". It would be a nice compromise since it at least keeps the UN bias many editors have here and it wouldn't allow for the "Emirate of Aleppo" to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soffredo (talk • contribs)
 * If you read the link i provided above, the so called "Emirate of Aleppo" doesnt actually exist. And furthermore the UN bias (which if you search the archives, i have noted for years has been a problem) is the very problem that's creating the situation where Luhansk and Donetsk which meet the constitutive theory and yet are excluded from the page.XavierGreen (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But once again, that isn't what sources actually say. Recognition by a single state isn't sufficient to meet the constitutive theory.  See for example this which says "Under the so-called "constitutive" theory, a territory is not a state unless it is generally recognized as such by other states".  Recognition by one state certainly isn't general recognition by other states, hence if we follow the definition provided by sources neither Luhansk nor Donetsk meet the constitutive theory.  In fact, we have sources that say even South Ossetia doesn't meet the constitutive criteria.  So how can recognition from a state which itself doesn't meet the constitutive criteria be constitutive?  Do you have any sources to support your claim that recognition by a single states is enough to meet the constitutive theory, in contradiction of this source?  You can't complain that the article doesn't reflect how sources define the constitutive theory, and then argue that we should make it disagree even more.  TDL (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't we add the Republic of Crimea (country) because it was recognized by one state? I know you're going to say it's because Russia is a UN member, but that relates back to the "UN bias" mentioned before.    [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 00:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, you added it a week before Crimea even declared independence, let alone was recognized by Russia.
 * XavierGreen raised an issue, and I'm trying to find a constructive solution to the issue. I fail to see what the relevance of what was done in the past is.  TDL (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You said to follow the constitutive theory, it must be generally recognized by states. Then you asked for sources supporting the claim that "recognition by a single states is enough to meet the constitutive theory". We however included Crimea, even though it was only recognized by one state. Why not add the DNR and LNR, which are both recognized by two states?   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 02:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your addition of Crimea to this list months ago is certainly not a reliable sources. When I ask for a reliable source, I mean things like academic journals or books on international law where such points are argued.  That wikipedia editors chose to do things one way in the past that were not in conformity with sources is irrelevant, since wikipedia is by definition not a reliable source.  TDL (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't it obvious I'm not talking about my addition of the Republic of Crimea? I'm talking about when it was added on 17 March 2014, the day it actually declared independence and got recognized by Russia. We kept the state on the List for about a week. Are we now going to say Russia's diplomatic relations aren't reliable? Same with South Ossetia's?    [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 12:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As best as I can tell, you're trying to make a WP:CIRCULAR argument: "recognition by a single state is enough to meet the constitutive theory of statehood because wikipedia editors listed Crimea even though they were only recognized by one state". But once again, what you or other wikipedia editors did in the past is irrelevant because you and other wikipedia editors are not reliable sources.  I could likewise argue that "recognition by a non-UN member state is not enough to meet the constitutive theory of statehood because wikipedia has always excluded states which are recognized by only non-UN members", which would be just as bad an argument.  If we want to include states which meet the constitutive theory of statehood, we need to look at what sources say that criteria is, not the past practices of a criteria which you yourself say is flawed.  TDL (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I see you undid my edit moving this section to the poll. Does it not seem relevant to you? Why make it a separate section?   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 23:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You added Crimea as a sovereign state 5 days before Crimea declared its independence, indeed. I could suggest that you'd add Scotland as a sovereign state today, before it's too late!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk & Luhansk
Ukraine and pro-Russia rebels sign ceasefire deal

This shows that the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic now have defined borders and the ability to establish relations with other states (each other, Ukraine, previously South Ossetia). This isn't a new proposal to add them since sources have yet to call them sovereign states, this is just a notification for editors who voted against their inclusion in the recent poll.  [  Soffredo  ]    15:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No. It says no such thing.  Ukraine has, in no sense, agreed to grant the two regions sovereignty.  They have agreed to a ceasefire, but Poroshenko's wording is very clear that the two will still be part of Ukraine.  And there are no "defined borders".  It is a ceasefire in place from all indications, meaning that Ukraine controls most of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, including Mariupol.  --Taivo (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't implying that Ukraine was granting de jure sovereignty. This ceasefire is similar to the War of Transnistria, in which the separatist-held areas became the borders for the unrecognized Transnistria.   [  Soffredo  ]   Yeoman lv2 small.png 15:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's not even on the level of the Transnistria situation. No details have been published yet and it could very well be a simple ceasefire in place, meaning that the frontlines are the de facto boundaries and not the boundaries of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.  But it is far too premature to even begin to think about adding them to this list.  --Taivo (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The frontline of Transnistria is the defacto boundry, there are signifigant portions of territory claimed by Transnistria not under its control. The same situation exists in Western Sahara. The situation regarding Somaliland is most akin to the situation in the DPR / LPR. The defacto borders of Somaliland are constantly in flux, as Puntland and federalist forces regularly attack somaliland and vice versa with territory changing hands as a result. The large areas of the western frontier provinces of Somaliland are under the control of Puntland, and Somaliland forces regularly will attack areas under Puntland or local militia control before elections and just as regularly withdraw after those elections have ended.74.105.130.90 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is still far too soon to consider this to be anything close to the de facto semi-permanence that we see in Western Sahara, Northern Somaliland, and Transnistria. --Taivo (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying China & Taiwan entries on the table/chart
I read the entry wordings under China & under Taiwan. These didn't click with me, and seemed to contradict each other in one or more points. Clearly the PRC claims Taiwan, and that is disputed and not recognized by all. But.... And how contiguous mainland China (see its own listing) is not recognized by so many as a country (??) – what is it, several countries? are they recognized? – is beyond me. I was taught that China was a country since I was a boy. Confused. It seems a rewording of these two entries by an editor who really understands it and knows what they are doing, and how to clearly word both of these entries, would help. Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC) (Updating the title) Misty MH (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The People's Republic of China (PRC) and the  Republic of China (ROC) both claim Mainland China  and the island of Taiwan. As according to the One-China Policy, States must decide what they recognize as the legitimate government of China; 22 states recognize the ROC instead of the PRC, even though it only controls the island of Taiwan. Hope this helps.   [  Soffredo  ]   Yeoman lv2 small.png 02:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The territory claimed by the ROC (Taiwan) is actually different than that claimed by the PRC, for example there are portions of Burma and Tajikistan claimed by the ROC that are no longer claimed by the PRC. Both the ROC and PRC claim to be the one and only legitimate government of China, but since in reality they both exist and operate as states, there is defacto two states called China. The confusion generally arises in that in most countries the Republic of China is refereed to as Taiwan, whereas in reality it claims to be the legitimate government of all China not just Taiwan (even though it has not controlled any areas on mainland Asia since the 1960's when its last positions in burma were overrun.XavierGreen (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible inclusion of Scotland
If the referendum results in a majority Yes, we should know that doesn't mean 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Scotland would be included right away. I think the following note should be included in the United Kingdom's entry. My edit is shown in green.

Thoughts?  [  Soffredo  ]    02:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The point is moot.


 * If the result had been "yes", I would have objected on the basis that the point was factually untrue: there would have been no evidence that any negotiations had taken place between the vote being called and the point being added.


 * But by the time you posted this, the "no" was already considered the most likely winner by the UK media. The BBC called the referendum for the "no" less than an hour and a half after your message - and the direction had been clear for a fair while by that stage.  Patience! Kahastok talk 07:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Republic of San Marino → Most Serene Republic of San Marino
It's the latter. It is the only country in the world that still uses "Most Serene" and the info box of San Marino uses it. I added this to the list but was reverted. — ₳aron  22:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names give the formal name as "Republic of San Marino". TDL (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have always understood it to be as User:Calvin999 says 'the Most Serene Republic of San Marino'. I don't think that the UN is the authority that makes names of countries what they are. It's the countries themselves that decide what they are called. Perhaps our neighborhood San Marino embassy could inform us. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well if we're going to base the formal names on this document, then maybe we should rename Nation of Brunei, Abode of Peace to the shorter Brunei Darussalam?  [  Soffredo  ]   Yeoman lv2 small.png 04:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd agree that Brunei should be changed as well. The English translation is only used very rarely in my experience.
 * As for San Marino, yes the UNGEGN doesn't have the authority to name countries, but they are the world experts at reporting what countries have decided to call themselves. In addition, the EU style guide lists the full name as "Republic of San Marino", as does the ISO.  Britannica agrees that this is the official name, but lists "Most Serene Republic of San Marino" as an "alternate long-form name".  TDL (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The info box on San Marino uses it, and if you look at Most Serene Republic, it says "is the only modern independent state to use the style. Although commonly referred to as the Republic of San Marino or simply San Marino, it officially retains the longer form." —  ₳aron  08:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so what other articles do has no influence on what we should do here. If you look at the sources linked from Most Serene Republic, none of them actually support the claim in the article, nor are there any sources linked from San Marino that claim it is the official name.  (The infobox was just changed by an anonymous IP a few months ago.)  Meanwhile, I've provided several quite authoritative sources which claim otherwise.  TDL (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I reject that linked statement, because there should be consistency across linked articles. Different giving information on different articles doesn't help at all. If you've provided source articles claiming that the long form is not official, then that's fine, but please apply your findings to San Marino and Most Serene Republic to avoid confusion and inconsistency. —  ₳aron  19:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Britannica: "Sovereignty is neither created by recognition nor destroyed by non recognition"
How about this: "Sovereignty is neither created by recognition nor destroyed by non recognition.” (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, edition 15, part 3, vol 17, 1981, p. 312). It pretty much invalidates the entire Criteria section that claims UN recognition creates sovereignty. Whoever wrote this article has never been to a law school, even as a visitor. Then they wonder why Britannica is so esteemed, and why Wikipedia is so ridiculed. 178.79.189.222 (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Britannica is not so universally esteemed. It depends on the field and the article.  In my own field, it is probably the least reliable source available.  --Taivo (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, do make us laugh. More, more... 178.79.189.222 (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that you don't think so, but Britannica is not the final authority for anything. Depending on the field, it might be one reliable source of many.  --Taivo (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You also completely misunderstand the section on sovereignty. There are more criteria than just UN membership that are used for determining sovereignty.  --Taivo (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Criteria section relies mostly on UN membership such as "recognition by at least one UN member." (Ha Ha) Britannica on the other hand is written, edited and proofed by world's leading experts on international law. Please no UN handbooks and tour guides, or anonymous "editors." The subject matter is too serious to be left to Wikipedia rules of thumb such as the infamous "knowledge based on majority vote." 31.193.135.43 (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources or consensus, then you shouldn't be editing here until you do. You clearly are ignorant of the relative reliability of Britannica as a source or the fact that Wikipedia isn't a mirror site for it.  --Taivo (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about Wikipedia being a mirror for Britannica? I simply pointed at the most authoritative reference out there. Enough said. Or do you prefer cherry-picking some UN tour guides that tell tales of how great the UN is, instead? Tune in to latest news to see how great the UN really is. 109.74.195.7 (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your view of Britannica as "the most authoritative reference out there" is utterly laughable. It is one reference out there, not the only one and not necessarily the best.  Your view that throwing the word "Britannica" into a conversation ends all discussion is terribly naive and utterly unscholarly.  When was the last time your university professor allowed you to copy an article out of EB as a term paper or allowed you to use it as your only reference?  "Never" is the correct answer.  There's a reason for that.  EB represents a single author's opinion and EB doesn't always even get the best scholars to write articles.  --Taivo (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. As I said, Britannica is written by leading authorities in the field. Not talking jingle bells here, but international law. British scholars obviously rule in that area. Enough said, for anyone with a properly functioning brain that is. 77.240.96.18 (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If Britannica constitutes your version of "international law", then you clearly don't have one of those "properly functioning brains". News flash, anon IP, there are many, many more authoritative sources in any field, including this one, than a general-purpose encyclopedia.  --Taivo (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You can "newsflash" all that you want but trying to make it personal will not help you. There is no "my version". For ages, Britannica has been regarded as The source of concise, accurate knowledge. Take it or leave it. Wikischmacky will never come close, together with your "anonymous editors" bwwhhahahahhaha. 80.78.150.191 (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Really, always a source of "concise, accurate knowledge" even though studies have found that Wikipedia, a site where anyone can edit entries, is nearly as accurate as Britannica. If they are so amazing then why is it that they can barely beat wikipedia in an accuracy test. Also, seriously Britannica is not international law, get with reality. SantiLak (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "accuracy test"? bwhhahahahahha...  "a site where anyone can edit entries"  bwhahahahahahahah  "get with reality" bwhahahahaha 190.192.120.125 (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Tertiary sources such as encyclopedias are usually poor sources to use because they often come down on one side or the other of disputed concepts and do not tell us where they got their information. Furthermore, courts do not use EB as an authority for law, they use case law and textbooks. In this case there are various methods of determining sovereignty. OTOH this article appears to be original research. We should point out the conflicting criteria used for determining state sovereignty in an article about state sovereignty and include a link to the list of member states of the UN. That would eliminate the needless discussion over minor issues such as whether the Cook Islands is a sovereign state or a dependency. TFD (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Courts determine sovereignty? bwwhhahahahahah  190.192.120.125 (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? Is it a minor issue that for example Bosnia and Herzegovina is listed under sovereign states and it is common knowledge that it has a foreign governor? He can enact and abolish any law, send anyone to prison without trial, order anybody to be hired or fired in any office, arrest and pardon citizens as pleases him? He owns the place. There has never been a more obvious example of colony in human history, and you list it as sovereign. Bravo for Wikipedia. accuracy bwhahahahah  Dark Ages perhaps. Blood and tears all over your hands, "anonymous editors" 190.192.120.125 (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Anon IP, if you can't edit without inserting your insipid comments in the middle of someone else's comments, then perhaps you shouldn't be here in Wikipedia editing at all. The Four Deuces is exactly right--Britannica is neither a primary source (transcript of a court ruling, text of a law), nor a secondary source (a scholarly appraisal of primary sources), but a tertiary one (a distillation of secondary sources).  Wikipedia, per WP:RS prefers secondary sources over tertiary ones since the scholarship is always considered to be more authoritative (as it is in the real world).  Scholarly writing in my own field never uses Britannica as a source--it's considered no more authoritative for actual scholarship than a college textbook.  But this is not the thread to deal with The Four Deuces' comments about original research.  In this thread we expose the anon IP's religious worship of Britannica for what it is--not relevant to Wikipedia.  And the anon IP's true anti-Bosnian agenda is revealed for what it is with his/her last comment.  --Taivo (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The IPs are socks of User:Bosnipedian, so it is best to WP:DENY recognition.
 * That being said, since Bosnipedian has such a fancy for Britannica, perhaps Bosnipedian should spend some time reading Britannica. For example: "International recognition is important evidence that the factual criteria of statehood actually have been fulfilled."  The article does not suggest that sovereign states are created by recognition, as the IP mistakenly claims, but rather it uses recognition as evidence that the statehood criteria is satisfied, which is precisely what Britannica says.  TDL (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So to you, pointing out the fact that the poor country is a colony, is anti Bosnian? How you people succeed in being so inhumane, beats me. I mean, in addition to covering up the blood and tears of colonialism. Also, you mix apples and oranges when comparing sovereignty with statehood. Those are not even similar, unless you use 6th Fleet as your argument. Besides, the article to which you are commenting is on sovereignty, not statehood. Finally, I never said sovereign states are created by recognition; your article says sovereignty is obtained through recognition by at least 1 UN member, which is rubbish seen only in Wikipedia. Britannica on the other hand is clear and focused, as always, because it is written by leading experts, not anonymous pricks with 6th fleet as their only backing. By the by, who the hell is Bosnapedean? 46.19.100.219 (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What idiot tried "closing" this discussion? How can you close a discussion in a "encyclopedia that everyone can edit"? What a hole. What a dump. 37.157.209.194 (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Discussions can't be "closed", that means they are censored. Does Wikipedia censor? Obviously yes. 107.191.102.189 (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussions can be closed and that doesn't mean they are censored. - SantiLak (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk & Lugansk autonomy
Since I'm placed under WP:1RR, I have to bring the issue on my recent edits here. I edited Ukraine's entry to look like this:

My edits were reverted twice by Volunteer Marek. The notes attached to our reverts went as followed: I think that this editor didn't notice that I added an autonomy note and reliable source after the sentence talking about how the "territories are given special statuses that grant them limited self-rule". I don't think I went against the rules/criteria of the article since the "Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty" says it includes information on "Any autonomous areas inside the territory of the sovereign state". I also mentioned South Ossetia's recognition of these territories since the section can also include information about "The extent to which a state's sovereignty is recognised internationally."  [  Soffredo  ]    21:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek : these are not soverign [sic] states or anything close to it - see the big red "ATTENTION EDITORS" that pops up when you try to edit this page
 * Soffredo : What I wrote did not call them sovereign states (I simply mentioned SO). They are territories that were granted limited self rule.
 * Volunteer Marek : doesn't matter what you wrote, please read the article title: List of  soverign  [sic] states   . Also please read the huge red notice that says "Attention editors" which says "Only states which are "often regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of ...
 * Volunteer Marek is quite right. There's nothing to say that these entities meet the standard such that their flags and suchlike are appropriate.  There are many areas with "limited self-rule" that do not get listed here in this way, and there's no reason for these to be exceptions. Kahastok talk 21:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, like which areas? And since where was there a standard to meet for these entities? These aren't special exceptions (but maybe their recognition from South Ossetia could make them one) . I see this as being a similar case to Syrian Kurdistan, except that the DNR and LNR were granted de jure autonomy. There is no reason to be difficult when it's known that the rebels have full control over certain areas.  [  Soffredo  ]   Yeoman lv2 small.png 21:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They aren't special exceptions, so why are you treating them as such? There are plenty of areas with limited self-rule, very few have flags and names.  Scotland has limited self-rule.  Hawaii has limited self-rule.  Flanders has limited self-rule.  Shoot, for a given definition of "limited self-rule", Berlaimont has limited self-rule.  None of those are are given flags and only one is named.  There is no need for Donetsk or Luhansk to be exceptions. Kahastok talk 22:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference being Donetsk and Lugansk do not claim to be part of the State. They participated in the Minsk Protocol as parties equal to that of Ukraine and Russia. They are de jure autonomous entities claiming statehood like Somaliland. Also, Scotland is mentioned in the United Kingdom's entry, so why make that an exception?   [  Soffredo  ]   Yeoman lv2 small.png 22:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference between the terrorist states of Donetsk and Luhansk is that while there have been overtures by the legitimate Ukrainian government to grant limited autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk regions, those two regions have neither accepted nor implemented the conditions which would make them autonomous within Ukraine. They are both still being run by Russians and Russian mercenaries who continue fighting, reject any notion of autonomy within Ukraine, and demand independence.  They did not allow their Ukrainian citizens to participate in the election on 26 October (which was one of the conditions of the Minsk agreement) and they are holding their own sham election for independent parliaments next week.  Transnistria is more or less stable and has been for a couple of decades.  But Donetsk and Luhansk are not actual entities at this time, they are only potential entities.  --Taivo (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The DNR and LNR are not potential entities. Grigory Karasin, the Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, said "I wish all participants of the election, that at this time respected Ukrainian security forces cease-fire to avoid bloodshed, and people could express their opinion as to who they would like to see at the head of the territorial entities". Also, it's hard to take your response seriously since you're using the terms "terrorist states" and "sham elections". You saying they reject any notion of autonomy within Ukraine is wrong in the sense that they agreed to the Minsk Protocol, granting them autonomy. This isn't their plan for the future, but this plan is meant to represent what's currently happening, right? Each entry on the List is allowed to have information on autonomous areas and the international recognition of a State's sovereignty. There is no reason why we shouldn't include the DNR or LNR. There is no reason why we should be ignoring their existence. We are not listing them as sovereign states.  [  Soffredo  ]   Yeoman lv2 small.png 23:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are quite wrong about the Russians running Donetsk and Luhansk accepting the Ukrainian position on autonomy. Your reading of the news apparently stopped on September 5.  If they actually accepted the Minsk accords, they would have participated in the elections on Sunday and would not be holding their own elections next week.  The Russians who run the so-called DNR and LNR have publicly stated that the Minsk agreement is dead and they will continue fighting to expand their territory (as if they ever stopped).  In addition, there are no borders for the so-called DNR and LNR--only ceasefire lines that the terrorists refuse to accept in their continuing attempts to expand the territory under their control.  The borders of the pseudo-states are not contiguous with the borders of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.  In addition, Russia, and the pseudo-states have violated the Minsk agreement by not allowing full access to the OSCE along the entire Ukrainian border and helping Ukraine to control its borders.  And the facts which I stated are correct, whether you like my tone of voice or not.  --Taivo (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well explained! I agree. And we have a List of states with limited recognition. My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Separate Palestine and Vatican City
Just some food for thought, what is the possibility of placing both the sections for Palestine and Vatican City into a separate column under "UN member states" but above "other states". This being because they are both observer states and not full member states of the United Nations General Assembly. thanks, tom991
 * I don't actually see how this will improve the content. In fact, it may well serve as a precedent for other users to ask that sovereign states disputed/not recognised by any given number of other states be placed above the two you are suggesting. This isn't the purpose of the list, therefore it's best served by the use of alphabetical order. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2015
List of Sovereign Countries the Country of Cyprus which is said to be not recognized by Turkey but the word recognized is spelled recognized.

216.250.15.178 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Taivo (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Crimea issue
In the Ukraine section, I think that it should include the fact that Crimea is claimed by Russia, after the recent conflicts there, do you agree?

Elephantyarn 2.0 (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No. This is a "hot war", without any kind of semi-permanence at this point.  South Ossetia and Abkhazia, for example, represent a "stable state".  But as long as Russia and Ukraine are shooting at one another, then it simply becomes a case of shifting borders.  Nothing is settled about Crimea.  --Taivo (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Donetsk and Luhansk are "hot wars". Crimea and Sevastopol were officially annexed by Russia,so they are now 2 of the 85 federal subjects in the Russia section,before that they had 83. For a short period Crimea was listed as a a de-facto-state until the annexation and before that Crimea was an autonomous region in the Ukraine section (look at 2013). By the way,I'm not a lawyer,but has Putin now annexed South Ossetia yesterday or not? I'm curious about your opinion,perhaps a lawyer can tell something about it. Engel1983 (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * putin has annexed Crimea in his own mind. It is as much a part of the "hot war" as the Donbass is.  There are not two separate wars between Ukraine and the Russian invaders.  --Taivo (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I didn't say that you're wrong. I only said that it has already been done in the way I described it. It wasn't me who changed it back then,it was done by others after beeing disscussed here on this page. Otherwise you have to revert it,which means that Russia has only 83 federal subjects and that Ukraine has an autonomous region called Crimea. Engel1983 (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of sovereign states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140926183035/http://www.foreignaffairscommittee.org/includes/content_files/Report%2021%20-%20Visit%20to%20Azerbaijan.pdf to http://www.foreignaffairscommittee.org/includes/content_files/Report%2021%20-%20Visit%20to%20Azerbaijan.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Archive redirect to top level of site. Replaced with correct archived version of PDF. Thanks, . --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit of List of states
Requesting to clean up repeated state in the list. eg. North Korea, South Korea, Congo, Northern cyprus, Taiwan are repeated in the list. Krazio (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Rico
Cannot find Puerto Rico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.52.157.25 (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't listed as a sovereign state, it's listed as a part of the United States because it is. - SantiLak  (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not part of the U.S., but it is a dependency of the U.S., therefore not sovereign. TFD (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's shown as part of the U.S.'s sovereign control but as a commonwealth in the list. - SantiLak  (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct, it is a dependency of the U.S. TFD (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, i'm aware of that and it's listed on the list as that, not as a sovereign state which it is not. - SantiLak  (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

FYROM
Why FYROM is not included in this list with a redirect to Macedonia, as Burma for Myanmar or Côte d'Ivoire for Ivory Coast? I tried to add it, but my edit was deleted. --Pierluigi05 (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is not a name, it is a placeholder when the entity refuses to use the actual name of the country: "Republic of Macedonia".  It's exactly like saying, "the artist formerly known as Prince".  It's not a name, it's a description.  --Taivo (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not exactly like the "Prince" situation since in that situation, there was no pronounceable name, just an impossible-to-typeset symbol. In the case of Macedonia, it's simply that a certain bankrupt neighboring country, and the organizations that it blackmails, do not wish to pronounce its name.  It's more like in Harry Potter where people choose to say "he who must not be named" rather than "Lord Voldemort".  That doesn't make "he who must not be named" a name worthy of inclusion in a "Wizarding Encyclopedia" under "H"; it is merely a description in place of the correct name.  --Taivo (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Israeli Civil Administration
This is the Israeli polity that administers the parts of the West Bank not under the control of the State of Palestine / Palestinian Authority. Its status is akin to that of the polities that make up Pakistani occupied Kashmir, in that it is not considered by israel to be a part of Israel. As such it should be bulleted under Israel's entry in the list, just as the two Pakistani controlled Kashmiri polities are.XavierGreen (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since its been 8 days and no one has opposed, i have added a bullet for Judea and Samaria under Israel, in line with how the Pakistani administrations in Kashmir are bulleted.XavierGreen (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted. There is no entity called Judea and Samaria that can be considered a recognized subset of the State of Israel. Furthermore the extrapolation from the Kashmir situation seems like OR to me. Not too sure about the Kashmir bullets either. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Regogniton is not a requirement that a polity be listed on this page. The fact that the Israeli and Pakistani occupational administrations exist is not original research and is well sourced within their articles. The inclusion of the Pakistani occupied Kashmiri areas as bulleted polities to be treated akin to dependencies (like puerto rico) and areas under which soveriegnty is limited by treaty (Hong Kong) was established by concensus on this page after a lengthy discussion. The inclusion of Judea and Samaria under israel in a similar bulleted fashion would follow the same logic behind that consensus. All three polities are occupational authorities for areas controlled and administered by a sovereign state, yet not annexed as an integral part of that state and thus should be bulleted.XavierGreen (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pakistan actually claims the territories listed under it's sovereignty, whatever their status within that sovereignty may or may not be. That doesn't go for Judea and Samaria, which has not been annexed to Israel and isn't even a recognizable entity. "Following the same logic" is not something we do here. That is OR. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the relevant archive page. Kashmir or Gilgit–Baltistan are not claimed by pakistan. They are merely administered by pakistan without pakistan claiming sovereignty over them. This is the exact same as Judea and Samaria, israel administers the territory but does not claim sovereignty. Following the page criteria is not OR.XavierGreen (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your repeated assertions that this isn't original research isn't something we can cite. Do you have a source for these conclusions? Jonathunder (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you want citations on? There are about 20 citations on the Judea and Samaria page itself which back up everything that i've said: That the polity is officially called Judea and Samaria, that it is administered by Israel, that it is not claimed by Israel.XavierGreen (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Israel doesn't claim it as it's territory, while Pakistan does claim Kashmir as it's territory. That is also clear from the articles you mention. That alone makes that it has no business being on this list, which is about sovereign states and subdivisions thereof. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also included are territories which are not part of the soveriegn states which control them: IE dependencies and occupied territories. Hence why polities such as Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Kingman Reef, Cocos Island, and Azad Kashmir are on the list.XavierGreen (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that these areas are bulleted is indicated in the inclusion criteria notes at the bottom of the page.XavierGreen (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Dependencies ARE part of the sovereign state which controls them. Occupied territories are not. These items are bulleted because, while they may not directly belong to the "mother country", they are still a part of the sovereign territory of the sovereign state involved. Such goes for Azad Kashmir with Pakistan, and also for the overseas territories of the UK and other countries. Judea and Samaria doesn't fall into that category because it is only under military occupation. Israel is not the "mother country" thereof. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read dependent territory, dependencies are not part of their "mother countries", instead they hold seperate soveriegnty which is subjugated to that of the administering state and are not incorporated integral areas of their administering state. Furthermore the Israeli's have a civil administration for the polity, the Israeli Civil Administration. Azad Kashmir is not part of the sovereign territory of Pakistan, it is explicty excluded under Pakistani law from being part of Pakistan. Instead it is considered to be an occupied polity under Pakistani administration, just as Judea and Samaria is an occupied polity under Isreali administration.XavierGreen (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether these areas are perceived as integral parts of the "mother country" or not, is beside the point. Dependent Territories are not sovereign entities by definition and they fall under the sovereignty of the state they belong to. Pakistan claims the entirety of Kashmir as it's territory. British dependent territories are what they are. BRITISH dependent territories. For the purpose of International relations they are part of the territory of the sovereign state involved. Whatever the internal workings or definitions that sovereign entity may employ. Besides, Judea and Samaria is not a dependent territory. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pakistan does not claim Kashmir as its territory, as i stated before. Pakistani law is crystal clear on that point, so much in that the Kashmiri admininistrations are explicitly excluded from the definition of Pakistan in that country's constitution. Israel directly excercises sovereignty over Judea and Samaria through its Civil Administration there, just as Pakistan administers Azad Kashmir through its administration there.XavierGreen (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Azad Kasmir is described on the articles thereof as "self governing administrative division of Pakistan". I can't make it any clearer than that. It's sourced material by the way.  . Baltistan as a "mountainous region in Pakistan". You may have some misunderstandings about the difference between the territory "proper" of a country and it's wider reach as a subject of international law, where it come to dependencies. The relations between a state (Israel) and territories under it's military occupation (Judea and Samaria) is of an entirely different nature because occupied territories do not fall under that "wider reach as a subject of international law". Simply because occupied territory is included neither in the "mother country", nor in it's "wider reach as a subject of international law". What you are doing here is to add Judea and Samaria as a territory under Israeli sovereignty, which it is not. Not even according to Israel. While Azad and Baltistan clearly are polities under Pakistani sovereignty. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no misunderstandings whatsoever, i have degrees in both Political Science and Law. I also was part of the lenghty discussion which set up the inclusion criteria for this page as well as the discussion which led to Azad Kashmir being bulleted under Pakistan. As i stated before and as is sourced in the relevant archive discussion, Azad Kashmir and Baltistan are not part of Pakistan, there is a wide array of case law in Pakistan which confirms this as well as the Pakistani constitution itself. Judea and Samaria are under an Israeli Civil Administration which i have linked to above. Israel directly administers these areas and exercises sovereignty over them without claiming the territory as a part of Israel. This is virtually akin in every regard to the situation in the Pakistani administered areas of Kashmir.XavierGreen (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Exercises sovereignty over them without claiming the territory as a part of Israel" is a contradiction in terms. The Pakistani situation is incomparable. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How is that an incompatable statement? Throughout history various occupational administrations have excercised sovereignty over polities without claiming them. For example, United States Army Military Government in Korea, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


 * Taking Points 1 and 4 - yes, I think that these could be included, if well designed. The German list is good; we could copy that style. That would improve its chance of being listed. The last nomination was |here, which includes some suggestions.
 * Point 2 - don't know, someone edited it, does it matter? If you think it's better, then change it
 * Point 3 - could do, but I don't think it's a good idea - I think that the list is long enough, but it could be improved with the sort of contextual info that the German list uses.--Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There are a fair few elements of the German article that I think are problematic. One of them is the order.  The German article treats all states with limited recognition as the equals of states with full recognition.  By doing so it accepts Abkhazia's claim to statehood and rejects the POV (which is near-universally accepted internationally) that it is part of Georgia.  Every member state of the UN considers Transnistria to be part of Moldova, but the German Wikipedia takes the opposite POV.  We're not allowed to do that.


 * We have had issues in the past with adding superfluous information because you end up with the question of precisely what information to add. These things are very rarely simple.  I notice with interest that the German article, for example, fails to include all 11 national languages of South Africa, restricting itself to English and Afrikaans.  It gives only a transliteration of native names in general, but gives the Chinese names of the PRC and ROC.  We had long and detailed debates (in the archives) about which local languages should be included for which countries, until we finally concluded they were more trouble than they were worth and got rid of them.


 * In terms of including dependent territories and such like, if you include them you have to then answer the question, where exactly is the edge of what this list ought to contain, and why is that a sensible place to put the edge? We used to have such a list, including dependent territories and areas of special sovereignty and called "list of countries", and it was got rid of because those questions could not be satisfactorily answered.  And bear in mind that a list of sovereign states, restricted solely to sovereign states, is the sort of thing that you would generally expect a paper encyclopædia to have and it would seem odd for this encyclopædia not to have one. Kahastok talk 19:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As of right now, Dependencies and areas with soveriegnty of the parent country limited by international treaty are included as bullets on the list.XavierGreen (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose including dependent territories. It's better to have a clear subject with well defined WP:LSC rather than an ambiguous title which everyone will want to add their home region to. Also, I disagree with adding other trivia. We have List of capitals, List of countries and dependencies and their capitals in native languages, List of countries and dependencies by area, etc to cover all these points. Cluttering up this list and duplication that content is not an improvement. TDL (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TDL. The more information you try to stuff into the content, the more fragmented the salient information becomes. I can envisage this turning into something like the various lists of current separatist movements, etc. WP:BADIDEA. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic
What about the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic? They recognized each other as well as partially recognized South Ossetia. VanyaTihonov (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read through the archives before posting a question that has been discussed many times over. They do not even begin to fit the criteria. See the List of states with limited recognition and its talk page for even more details. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The main obstacle which prevents their inclusion in the list are reliable sources which state that they meet the declarative theory of statehood. Until those are found, its likely consensus will change regarding inclusion. In regards to the constitutive theory, as South Ossetia is not recognized by a majority of states, its recognition of the eastern Ukrainian republics is insufficient per the inclusion criteria of this page.XavierGreen (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh, and Somaliland already included in the list, despite the fact that the first two recognize only partially recognized states (Abkhazia and South Ossetia), and Somaliland — no one at all. VanyaTihonov (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically the criteria for inclusion for this list do not equal the criteria that would apply to the declarative theory of statehood. The criteria for inclusion seem to be rather random to me. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The criteria for inclusion are essentially that we have to be able to demonstrate in each case that the notion that a state legally exists is at least a "significant viewpoint" per WP:WEIGHT. WP:WEIGHT gives a useful three-point list:

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.


 * Our criteria are effectively codifying this list in this context. Putative states in the first two bullets - majority and significant minority views - are included (in one part of the list or the other - we have to get the relative weight between those two points correct as well).  Putative states where the POV that they legally exist is held only by "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" (of reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors) - where there is no significant evidence from academics, lawyers or diplomats that a state legally exists - are not included.


 * Now, are our criteria a perfect way of codifying these principles?  Of course not.  But I think perfection is probably impossible and I think we could discuss this for an awfully long time without coming up with anything better. Kahastok talk 13:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Transnistria, NKR and Somaliland are included because there are reliable sources that state that they meet the declarative theory of statehood, demonstrated in previous discussions. There are two different rules for inclusion and meeting either is enough.  Donetsk and Luhansk meet neither. Kahastok talk 13:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Kahastok, thanks for your remarks. The criteria for inclusion in this article are:
 * (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
 * Donjesk and Lugansk comply with (a) in the sense that they consider themselves sovereign. The rest of (a) is unclear to me. “Often regarded”? What on earth does that mean? Further note that (a) and (b) are separated by the word “or”. So either (a) “or” (b) will do, apparently. (B) is also problematic in itself. Why do UN member states get to have a say because they are UN member states? The UN is not a state and is certainly not in the business of recognising or not recognising states. The UN has itself declared that it has no authority to do so. So why do UN member states get an extraordinary position? Even when it's just one? What is that based on?
 * The word “or” in between a and b, has always stricken me as patently absurd. It may have been designed to include states that do not consider themselves sovereign (notably Niue and the Cook Islands), but have diplomatic relations with other states. Note however that diplomatic relations does not equate state recognition, which is another thing this (and other related) articles suggests that is highly doubtful. So on the basis of these criteria? Donjetsk and Lughansk in and Niue and the Cook Islands out! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria have always been difficult to articulate and to demonstrate, so, in the end, it is WP:CONSENSUS that has had the final say. But in the case of the two so-called "states" in the Donbass there is absolutely no consensus because they are the result not of a locally-grown independence movement, but of a Russian invasion--first by special forces operatives only (who posed as "locals" and initiated the so-called declarations of independence) and soon after by both special forces operatives and regular Russian military units.  Even Russia, their sponsor and supplier of all their military hardware, has publicly stated that they are to remain part of Ukraine.  They simply have no basis for existence when their originator, sustainer, and guarantor has stated that they are part of Ukraine.  --Taivo (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that so? How do we establish that and that is different from Abchazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria how exactly? And if it's just up to consensus, why bother with criteria for inclusion at all? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * First question, using reliable sources that say that those three meet the criteria for the declarative theory, or are recognised by one or more UN member states - both points are lacking in the case of Donetsk and Luhansk. That is, we go back to the criteria.  Second question, we have criteria so that we have something we can measure against.  The question of consensus is as to whether there is consensus that the criteria are met, or not, as opposed to consensus as to whether a state exists or not.  If we didn't have criteria for inclusion, there would be no reason to include anything and no reason not to include everything, regardless of whether it was a state, a kind of cheese or an abstract concept. Kahastok talk 16:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The point behind "often regarded" is that it is not us judging whether the declarative theory is met. We aren't allowed to make that judgement.  It is reliable sources that have to make the judgement.


 * It is not the fact that they are UN member states per se that would in principle be important. If large numbers of well-established and universally-uncontroversial states were not UN member states we would probably need to come up with some other rule.  But we spent literally years trying to find a sensible dividing line between those states that are near-universally uncontroversial and those putative states that have little acceptance - between the first two points in the list from WP:WEIGHT - and this was the best we could come up with.  I see no appetite to repeat that debate.


 * And it works. What we're saying here is that no diplomat, academic or international lawyer on the planet accepts Donetsk and Luhansk as states, except for the claimed government of a claimed state, that itself is rejected by the vast majority of the international community.  To my eye, that puts it very clearly in the third category from the list at WP:WEIGHT: a viewpoint that "is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority", and thus "does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it".


 * And the "or"? Firstly because there are two different theories of statehood and each could be taken as valid.  It's a neutral choice to allow either.  Second, from a purely practical perspective, try proving the case that the United States or France or India meet the declarative theory.  It's actually quite difficult.  Nobody does that analysis because there's no reason why they need to: every lawyer, diplomat and academic on the planet would accept these as states without a second thought. Kahastok talk 17:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that reasoned response, User:Kahastok. There are two further differences that separate Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria from Donbass--stability over time and defined borders.  The two former have been pseudo-states since 2008 and Transnistria since 1992.  In all three cases, there are well-understood borders that can be delineated on a map and have been "fixed" since the end of the armed conflicts that created them.  That is certainly not true of Donbass.  Just this week the Russian terrorists captured a Ukrainian town near Mariupol and shifted the "borders" again.  So add this lack of stability and the lack of defined borders to the virtually total lack of recognition from the international community (including their Russian creator) and you have no criteria for including them in this list, even as "disputed states".  --Taivo (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Basically my concerns are more about the criteria for inclusion and how we deal with them than about Donjetsk and Lugansk. The criteria are self declared by the consensus of the Wikipedia community. If we as editors have to determine whether secondary or even primary sources confirm or deny, that entity X answers our self imposed criteria, then we have a lot of interpreting to do when it comes to reading the sources. Specially because our criteria are basically of no concern to the authors of these sources. Too much interpreting of sources borders on WP:SYNTH. Which is problematic. I believe that is one of the main problems wit this list and some others. This is well illustrated by the question surrounding Niue and the Cook Islands that this community hasn't been able to solve one way or the other for many years now. Also we seem to introduce the criterium of outside intervention and ongoing conflict to keep Donjetsk and Lugansk off the list. If asked, I could argue that South-Ossetia, Transnistria and Abkhazia came about in much the same way. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This can be said for nearly every article in Wikipedia. That's why we establish criteria as best we can based on a consensus of reliable sources, but in the end a consensus of Wikipedia editors is required to overcome every single inherent POV that we carry concerning X or Y.  Even reliable sources can point in different directions.  We have to rely in the collective intelligence and reasonableness of Wikipedia editors to discuss and come to an agreement.  No combination of wikilawyered policies or rules can ever substitute for consensus in the end.  In this article, we have come to a stable consensus over the years on how to deal with difficult situations.  In almost every case, a consensus has been built.  Cook Islands and Niue do not abrogate the stability of that consensus.  Indeed, they might be called the exceptions that prove the rule.  --Taivo (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec) I disagree with you in your argument that "our criteria are basically of no concern to the authors of these sources". For the most part, actually the opposite is true, at least for the declarative theory.  The sources we want are trying to determine - academically, legally - whether a state exists, precisely the aim of our inclusion criteria.  Being a state is a Very Big Deal as has been said, and this is a rule that academics and lawyers can take a view on.  And the recognition rule takes very little interpretation - either there is recognition or there is not.  There's no middle ground or room for error.


 * Niue and the Cook Islands are an excellent illustration of why I made the case, earlier, "I think perfection is probably impossible and I think we could discuss this for an awfully long time without coming up with anything better".  The Cook Islands and Niue are - entirely deliberately - ambiguous about whether they are sovereign states or not.  There is no dispute - the rest of the world accepts that they are whatever they say they are.  We have to make a call.  We can't just not decide - either they are in or they are not in the list.  If we come up with another set of criteria - almost no matter what they are, so long as they're sensible - the same issue will still arise because it arises in real life. Kahastok talk 22:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for engaging in this conversation. I appreciate that these are not easy questions to solve. I must admit that the Niue and Cook Island question is my greatest bother when it comes to this list, because they themselves and New Zealand have issued a letter of understanding in which the parties involved don't seem to regard those two states as sovereign, although I must also admit that there are many distracting factors in that particular situation. The other thing that bothers me (sorry for all the tiresome complaining) is that the declarative theory is described as dominant in the article. I know that there is a source for that but I also think it's just an opinion by the author. In practice good old Westphalian sovereignty is still around when it comes to how states actually act in these matters. I also admit that basing criteria for inclusion on that theory of statehood might give us some problems as well... When I say that "our criteria are basically of no concern to the authors of these sources" I mean to say that our criteria, as written down in the body of the article, do not precisely equal the declarative theory (there is an "or" involved and I think that even the declarative theory frowns upon declaring statehood on territory that is legally part of another state, Abbkazia, South-Ossetia, Transnistria, Northern-Cyprus etc), so authors of sources probably write what they are writing without being aware of the intricacies of what would be appropriate for this particular list. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Our criteria are intended to include states that meet either theory. So, if it meets the declarative theory only, it's in.  If it meets the constitutive theory only (based on a single recognition by a UN member state), it's in.


 * The way we do the declarative theory demands a certain amount of evidence. It is insufficient for a source to simply say that a state exists, or that the declarative theory is met.  The source has to explicitly invoke the declarative theory to argue that a state exists.  That is what is required to meet, according to consensus, the requirements of WP:NOR.  We have that for the three entries for which it matters: Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria and Somaliland.  All the rest can make do with the constitutive theory anyway - they are all recognised by at least on UN member state.


 * On the point that the declarative theory is dominant, I must admit I have no real feel for that (though I note that it was applied by the EEC in the Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia). The institutions for which this is most important - the states themselves when they decide whether to recognise or not - will almost always take political considerations into account in practice. Kahastok talk 23:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A few points points that may have already been covered above:
 * Why restrict the inclusion criteria to only consider recognition to UN member states? It's a recursive definition (a state is anything recognized by a state), so logically we need some basis from which to measure (ie "known states").  Then we can test whether other things are states by seeing if they are recognized by the "known states".  In principal we could choose any set of "known states" (the US, EU member states, Laos, Portuguese speaking countries) and determine what else meets the definition.  In practice there has to be some limit on the set of states from which recognition meets the criteria, otherwise someone would argue that Sealand and the Principality of Hutt River recognize each other and thus satisfy the criteria.  So how do we define this set?  There's lots of literature that argues that recognition from mostly unrecognized states is effectively meaningless.  The UN member states is an easily verifiable set of states which are generally recognized.  The point is we include first order mostly unrecognized states, but not second order mostly unrecognized states (ie mostly unrecognized states which themselves are only recognized by mostly unrecognized states).  Given that South Ossetia is itself a fringe state, things it recognize are even more fringe.


 * Why the OR? Part a) covers the declarative theory and b) the constitutive theory.  This list includes all states that meet one definition or the other.  So states which don't meet the declarative theory of statehood but are recognized (ie arguably Palestine) or states that meet the declarative theory of statehood but aren't recognized (ie Somaliland) are both included.  We deliberatly don't define the declarative theory in the criteria to allow sources to interpret it as they see fit and avoid SYN.  TDL (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, the reason Donetsk, Luhansk, and even the Islamic State are not included in the list is not because they don't meet the declarative theory of statehood, it is that no one as of yet has shown a reliable source which states that they meet the declarative theory of statehood.XavierGreen (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the same goes for Sealand. TDL (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016. &#x0020;Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Use of Country/Geopolitical Faction Infobox on Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic pages
An edit war over which infobox to use on the DPR and LPR pages has been ongoing for several months now. In an attempt to remedy the situation i have opened up a discussion and request for comment here Talk:Donetsk_People%27s_Republic, your opinions and comments on the issue would be much appreciated.XavierGreen (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate entries
Several countries are listed more than once, with a link to the main entry. In several cases, this is clearly an alternative name linking to the main entry (e.g. Sudan, South → South Sudan), but for others, I can't see any difference. Am I missing something, or should these be removed? (easiest way to find them all: sort table by name. They will all be at the bottom). Iapetus (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Abkhazia → Abkhazia
 * Cook Islands → Cook Islands
 * Kosovo → Kosovo
 * Nagorno-Karabakh → Nagorno-Karabakh
 * Niue → Niue
 * Northern Cyprus → Northern Cyprus
 * Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic → Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
 * Somaliland → Somaliland
 * South Ossetia → South Ossetia
 * Sudan, South → South Sudan
 * Taiwan (Republic of China) → Taiwan
 * Transnistria → Transnistria
 * Some of them are mentioned in the main entry but don't belong there because they are not universally recognized states and are in the other entry. I don't think that Niue and the Cook Islands belong in the list at all. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of sovereign states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100621140255/http://www.itc.gov.fj:80/lawnet/fiji_act/cap122.html to http://www.itc.gov.fj/lawnet/fiji_act/cap122.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the reason for spliting the list between UN and non UN countries?
Is this page trying to give some higher importance to UN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.54.252 (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to me.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUEWEIGHT is certainly the reason. If there was no split this list would give vast WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to those claims that are generally rejected internationally.  We spent literally years discussing how best to do this and a split based on the UN was best idea we had.  I see no reason to change it now. Kahastok talk 18:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that Wikipedia hasn't done a very good job when it comes to deciding what are states and what are not states. I know that it's difficult and that there is more than one theory around. But what we have now as criteria for inclusion isn't consistent. Basically we can include states now, that don't regard themselves as states. Niue and the Cook Islands is what I'm talking about. Also the sources that give them state recognition (here and in other articles) are generally awful and mostly wrong or badly (WP:OR) interpreted mostly primary sources! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with you Hebel, but the current situation regarding CI/Niue is a consensus reached after years of discussion, so much so that it has its own archive page. Please look through those archives to see how we reached where we are now. CMD (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Editors are divided into two camps regarding this topic, and for the time being at least, there does not seem to be any way of getting the two groups to agree. Both groups recognize this, and have decided to adopt a series of compromise solutions (such as listing the two entities in question both under dependent territory and List of sovereign states). I hope you don't take personally my saying so, but bringing up the issue in every talk page topic (regardless of whether the topic specifically addresses it or not) does not seem a very constructive alternative. Ladril (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit request.
South Sudan is now composed of 28 states now (since 2015), not 10 as stated here. 8.40.151.110 (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks! CMD (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2016
Could you change ireland to republic of ireland as ireland is actually a republic

Charliem237 (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Ireland's official name is simply "Ireland", and that is what we use here. CMD (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The UK (Brexit)
It still says that the UK is a part of the EU, so I would say maybe add something talking about the Brexit, for example, "Former member of the EU" or something.

65.94.159.98 (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The UK is still currently a member of the EU and the process of leaving the EU will take at least two years to complete. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Palestine (Again)
It is utterly a joke to list Palestine in a list of "sovereign states", if anything, it may be the least sovereign entity ever. I'm sure some sort of discussion went to include in this list, but seriously people... --Tachfin (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The "but seriously people" argument is right up there with "it's [current year], why isn't this the way I want it" in terms of unfounded and circular reasoning. We've had numerous discussions about how sovereignty is established, and those discussions led to the conclusion that a Palestinian state exists as a partially recognized legal entity with partial control of the territory it claims. Israel acknowledges a Palestinian Authority with some level of sovereignty, and doesn't claim that it's part of a federation like the "sovereign" states that compose the US or Switzerland, so it stands to reason that it belongs in this list with appropriate indication of its unique situation. If you have something to add to this discussion, bring up a relevant bit of international law or Wiki guidelines. "Seriously people" is not an argument.Astrofreak92 (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Crimea
The annexation of Crimea is not mentioned anywhere in the list: perhaps there should be a mention about how both the Ukraine and Russia claim it, maybe under their respective entries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.127.228 (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We do not list territorial disputes between the integral territory of two countries. CMD (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not true, the India-China territorial dispute concerns "integral" territory and is covered here.Astrofreak92 (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * True. Does anyone remember why we do this? CMD (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is discussion in the archives that Azar Kashmir is recognized as a sovereign state by the U.S. and some other countries. TFD (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Azad Kashmir is claimed by its government to be a sovereign state, it claims to be the legitimate government of the former Princely State of Kashmir. It is in effect administered directly by the Pakistani government, but the Pakistani government does not claim it as an integral part of Pakistan. Its position is somewhat akin to an external territory which is why it is bulleted in the list. Crimia is however a integral part of Russia and thus not akin to the situation involving Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan.XavierGreen (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But I'm not talking about Azad Kashmir, I'm talking about the northern parts of India's claimed Jammu and Kashmir disputed with China. That territory is discussed here. Astrofreak92 (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Azad Kashmir claims those portions of Kashmir controlled by India to be its territory as well.XavierGreen (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they are also claimed by India and China. The dispute between India and China is covered here independent of any claims of Azad Kashmir or Pakistan. Astrofreak92 (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Than the dispute between China and India should be removed, since claims over integrated areas of states are not shown on the page. The claim between India and the Pakistani administered areas should still be mentioned since it involves external territories.XavierGreen (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there actually a territorial dispute between Pakistan (or it's territories) and China? This file seems to indicate that there hasn't been one since at least 1963, while Azad-Kashmir couldn't possibly be involved anyway. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "...Article VI [of the Sino-Pakistani Agreement of 1963] stated "The two Parties have agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, the sovereign authority concerned will re-open negotiations with the Government of the People's Republic of China... so as to sign a Boundary Treaty to replace the present agreement." . Ladril (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Kashmir situation is complicated. I would like to point out for the time being, however, that the entry on Sudan lists a territorial dispute concerning integral territory. If what CMD says is true (seems to me that it is) it should be removed. Ladril (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I would ask other editors to consider moving Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan to the "excluded entities" section, since they are neither sovereign states nor dependencies in the sense we understand them to be in Wikipedia. Ladril (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good spot. I've removed the Sudan entry, it lacks any of the contingencies that makes Kashmir so complicated. It also wasn't replicated on South Sudan.
 * I would agree that Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan may merit inclusion on the excluded entities section as well. CMD (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are treated defacto by Pakistan as dependencies and are administered by Pakistan. They should still be bulleted under Pakistan.XavierGreen (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that they are not listed on the dependent territory page, so I would question whether they merit inclusion on the same level as the Falklands or Aruba. Ladril (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They should be listed on the dependent territory page in the second section. Also, Aruba is not a dependent territory, but is an integrated part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. If you look through the talk page archives here, the consensus was to bullet them since they are akin to external territories in most respects.XavierGreen (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Aruba has gone through a political and legal process in which it has become sufficiently distinct from the Netherlands while still retaining strong ties to that country. This is the rationale for its inclusion as a bulleted item. Pakistan-administered Kashmir, on the other hand, is a completely different situation. It is territory under military occupation which has not been legally stabilized as a possession of Pakistan, even under Pakistani law. Even if its situation is similar to that of a dependency or protectorate, this fact alone may not be enough to warrant treating them like the other bulleted items. Ladril (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Aruba, the Netherlands, et al are bulleted because they are the constituent countries to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and are all in personal union with each other. In re Azad Kashmir and Baltistan: "Legally stabilized as a possession of Pakistan", what does that statement mean? There are elected governments that civilly govern Azad Kashmir and Baltistan. Those governments have always acquiesced to Pakistani overlordship of themselves. The fact that they are not integrated parts of Pakistan is the entire reason they are bulleted and why they are akin to dependencies or protectorates. I also note that in the various lists of sovereign states by year, protectorates, vassal states, and suzerainties are bulleted as well.XavierGreen (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If people want to continue the Kashmir discussion, may I request that we open a new thread for that? This stopped being about Crimea a long time ago. Ladril (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan-administered Kashmir
Xavier said: "No, Aruba, the Netherlands, et al are bulleted because they are the constituent countries to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and are all in personal union with each other." Except the bullets are not used exclusively to denote constituent countries. The other interpretation (that they are akin to dependent territories for Wikipedia purposes) has validity as well. That's my reading of the page at least.

"In re Azad Kashmir and Baltistan: "Legally stabilized as a possession of Pakistan", what does that statement mean? There are elected governments that civilly govern Azad Kashmir and Baltistan. Those governments have always acquiesced to Pakistani overlordship of themselves." Irrespective of accuracy, this seems to me to be irrelevant to the discussion of whether they should be bulleted or not. The extent to which many of the bulleted items have "acquiesced" to be a possession of the "parent" country is questionable.

"The fact that they are not integrated parts of Pakistan is the entire reason they are bulleted and why they are akin to dependencies or protectorates." As pointed out previously, we pretty much agree that their situation is "akin to dependencies or protectorates". My point is that under international law they are in de jure legal limbo: they have not been declared to be sovereign countries, protectorates, associated states, dependent territories, autonomous regions, or anything else for that matter. This is what raises the question of whether they should be listed on the same level as all the other entities that have a more clearly defined legal status.

"I also note that in the various lists of sovereign states by year, protectorates, vassal states, and suzerainties are bulleted as well." Yes, but this page has stricter standards on inclusion, organization, accuracy, etc. than many of those lists. I believe they should be judged by the standards of this page, not the other way around. Ladril (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The standards of the "list of sovereign states in the (insert decade)" pages are exactly the same as they are here, though some of the old year by year pages which were being phased out have not yet been updated to reflect that. Per prior discussions the following types of polities are bulleted: polities which are subject to sovereignty of a country that is limited by international treaty (Svalbard, Aland, the Chinese SARs), dependent territories, associated states/protectorates, and self declared autonomous areas (which hold defacto independence, yet don't claim independence dejure). In each of these instances the sovereignty held over the polity is either held independently from that of the administering country, or the sovereignty held by the mother country is limited in some manner. I assume the two polities that make up Bosnia are bulleted because their existence is regulated by the Split Agreement, an international treaty to which Croatia is a party.XavierGreen (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are actually quite a few discrepancies between the "list of sovereign states by year" pages and this one. To name one, most of them do not even mention Azad Kashmir or Gilgit Baltistan. I'm confused as to how I can take them as an example to follow here. Also, my central question remains unanswered: why should we treat Pakistan-administered Kashmir, which is a disputed territory with unresolved international status, the same as we do autonomous areas and dependent territories? Or to phrase the question in a different way: what are the criteria an entity must meet in order to be made a bulleted entry in the list? Xavier's method of trying to compare Azad Kashmir to other cases is unsatisfactory, since it does not address how specific their situation is. I would say this is a good time to make our criteria for bulleted entries explicit. Ladril (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether or not a polity is disputed is irrelevant as to whether or not it exists defacto or dejure. Azad Kashmir and Baltistan exist as a Pakistani administered polities under Pakistani law and their own laws. For instance, the existence of Somaliland is disputed by the entire world, and it is listed here on this page. The existence of the Falkland Islands as an overseas territory of the United Kingdom is disputed by several countries, which decline to recognize its existence in international relations.XavierGreen (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For the third time, no one is questioning that the Pakistani-administered areas exist or that they have their own laws. For the present discussion we are also not interested in whether other states recognize them or not. The issue is whether their explicit status (disputed territories) merits being bulleted just like constituent countries and dependent territories, or whether they should be designated in some other way. Ladril (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Official name of East Timor
Given that we maintain a list of official state names on this page, editors might be interested in the discussion at Talk:East_Timor on whether we should list common names as official names. TDL (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for bulleting
The standards for bulleting in the page seem to be in need of clearer definition. Currently, bulleting seems to involve constituent countries as well as any item included in the dependent territory page. Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are also bulleted, and there is a debate above on whether they should be. Autonomous areas are not bulleted for the most part, though at least two (Cyrenaica and Syrian Kurdistan) are. Federal subjects are not bulleted for the most part, though two federal areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina are. Not sure whether the two entries disputed by the United States deserve to be bulleted either. Can we start to define clear criteria for bulleting entries? If there is some reason for the differences, can anybody explain them to me? Ladril (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I already explained what is bulleted and why above, though upon further review I don't see anything which indicates that constitutive countries should be bulleted. The polities that make up Bosnia are regulated by an international treaty. As for Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank, they are both considered to be unincorporated territories by the United States. Serranilla Bank is occupied and administered by Colombian troops. Bajo Nuevo Bank is generally unoccupied, but is occasionally occupied by Jamaican nationals and Colombian nationals. Many of the territories/dependencies bulleted above are subject to sovereignty claims of other nations (Falklands, South Georgia, Navassa, Wake Island, Gibralter, ect). Just because another country claims a polity does not mean that it shouldn't be bulleted above.XavierGreen (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not remember ever saying that an entry should not be bulleted if it is subject to a sovereignty claim by another nation. I don't see how you got that notion. What I am asking is for clarification for certain types of areas where the criteria for bulleting are not explicitly defined. To give you a clearer idea of what I'm trying to accomplish, I will draft a list of what seem to be the current criteria for bulleting an entry:


 * Currently, bulleted entries include:
 * 1. Constituent countries of a sovereign state (with criteria taken from the constituent country page).
 * 2. Dependent territories of a sovereign state (with criteria taken from the dependent territory page).
 * 3. Two federal areas which form part of Bosnia and Herzegovina and were created by an international agreement: Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska.
 * 4. Two self-governing areas under the control of Pakistan: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.
 * 5. Two self-declared autonomous areas (Cyrenaica and Syrian Kurdistan). Note that there are other self-declared autonomous areas which are not currently bulleted, such as Puntland and Galmudug.
 * 6. Two territories whose sovereignty is being disputed by the United States (not currently listed on the dependent territory page):

Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank.


 * Given the list above, I would suggest four things. First, to incorporate these into the page as explicit criteria for the bulleting. Secondly, to look for instances in which the criteria may not be consistently applied across the table. Thirdly, to check whether some of these criteria are currently pertinent or useful. Fourth, to add or remove bulleted entries if necessary. Ladril (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My issues with the current bulleting scheme, explained as succintly as possible, are:
 * 1. Does the creation of federal areas by an international agreement really warrant bulleting them? I would motion for Federation of Bosnia and Republika Srpska to be unbulleted.
 * 2. Are Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan to remain bulleted? If so, let's write in the article that they are being included as self-governing areas with disputed international status.
 * 3. If Cyrenaica and Syrian Kurdistan are bulleted, Puntland and Galmudug are very likely to merit being bulleted as well.
 * 4. I would lean towards removing the bulleting (or even any mention for that matter) of the Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo territories, but would like to hear other opinions.
 * Thoughts on any of this? (no offense, but I would rather not have Xavier repeating any point he has already made. His positions are already clear). Ladril (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are not included because they are "self-governing areas with disputed internal status", they are included because they are external territories administered by Pakistan. As for Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo, they are claimed by the United States government as unincorporated territories, to be NPOV they would have to be included if territories such as the Falklands or South Georgia are listed. Also, your are consistently stating that the dependant territory wiki page has inclusion criteria, reviewing the page I don't see any specificly outlined inclusion criteria like there is on this page.XavierGreen (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)4
 * Your list above also does not mention the four polities bulleted with their mother countries sovereignty limited by international treaty (Hong Kong, Aland Islands, Macau, and Svalbard). Once upon a time these polities had their own Wikipedia page called something like "special territories" or something to that effect, but for whatever reason it was merged into the dependent territory page.XavierGreen (talk)
 * Thoughts:
 * 1) We do not bullet constituent countries. Any that are bulleted are bulleted for other reasons.
 * 2) Not sure we should take criteria from the other page, but dependent territories vague as they are, merit bulleting due to their treatment as separate in most sources.
 * 3) The Bosnian regions are there under the international treaty requirement, although I will note that in our List of sovereign states and dependant territories in Europe page someone made an argument for Northern Ireland to fall under this category, and it may do so here too.
 * 4) Pakistan's territories would qualify as dependent territories per Xavier's argument, which I am minded now to accept barring sources otherwise.
 * 5) Autonomous areas I would unbullet.
 * 6) Falls under dependent territory criteria.
 * CMD (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of moving things forward, in what follows I will respond to the two editors above: I agree that the criteria for the dependent territory page are not very clear and could use improvement, but they also reflect a long-standing consensus among Wikipedia editors as to what qualifies as a dependent territory and what does not. If anybody wants to change that consensus, the appropriate venue should be that page, not this one. Also, to be frank, the coincidences between what is listed on the constituent country and dependent territory pages and what is being bulleted here are actually much more numerous than the differences. Since editors on the three pages pretty much agree already on what constitutes a territory worthy of mention, I would suggest we keep the sorting and fine-tuning to a minimum.

With this in mind, I did not define a separate criteria for Hong Kong, Svalbard, etc., because these territories are already on the dependent territory page. Likewise, I am mentioning the Pakistani-administered areas of Kashmir and the disputed areas of the US separately because they are NOT on that page. Why is this relevant? Because, until somebody shows reliable sources to the contrary, listing Pakistani-administered Kashmir as dependent territories risks falling under WP:OR. As for the Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo cases (which I'm not very familiar with), why should the dispute about them be mentioned when there are no references to the Falklands or Gibraltar disputes anywhere on the page? Ladril (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Responding more specifically to CMD's comments:

1. Re: constituent countries. If these are not being bulleted as such, the Netherlands entry is in need of revision. The Dutch territories in the Caribbean would still merit being bulleted since they are listed on the dependent territory page. 2. Re: dependent territories. No disagreement here. 3. Re: Bosnian regions. This would probably have a stronger case if editors could come to an agreement on the Northern Ireland issue. In any case, the page should include an explanation that these are bulleted because of the international treaty criteria, and not for any other reason. 4. Re: Kashmir. The problem with Xavier's argument is we do not have any sources that describe these as dependent territories. I'm not pushing for unbulleting them, in any case. All I am saying is that if they are to remain bulleted, we have to write in the article why we are bulleting them. 5. Re: Autonomous areas. I would unbullet them (and remove WP:FLAGCRUFT) as well. 6. Re: Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo. They are not currently listed on the dependent territory page, so to me they look more like a residual territorial dispute that should be removed since disputes for the most part are not listed (except when Kashmir or the non-UN states are involved). Ladril (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Also moving forward, here is a revised list of what seem to be the current criteria for bulleting:

1. Constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 2. Two federal areas of Bosnia created by international agreement: Federation of Bosnia and Republika Srpska. 3. Dependent territories of sovereign states, as listed on the dependent territory page. 4. Two special territories of Chile not listed on the dependent territory page: Easter Island and Juan Fernandez. In my opinion, these should be treated as autonomous areas (see list of autonomous areas by country) and unbulleted. 5. Two self-governing areas under the control of Pakistan: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. 6. Two self-declared autonomous areas (Cyrenaica and Syrian Kurdistan). Note that there are other self-declared autonomous areas which are not currently bulleted, such as Puntland and Galmudug. 7. Two territories whose sovereignty is being disputed by the United States (not currently listed on the dependent territory page): Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank. Not sure what business these have being on the page, since they are uninhabited and other disputes over uninhabited territory are not covered. Ladril (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Responding for now just on the constituent country point, it is very hard to describe the Netherlands due to its unique structure. Like France and Denmark, its legal structure treats all its land is integral territory. Unlike France and Denmark, it does not subsume the overseas territories under its core political structure, but instead sets them up as theoretical equals (although in practice they're clearly not). We thus have to balance the displaying of the territories, which man sources do, with an accurate description of its political structure, hence the listing of the European (+ a couple of Caribbean islands) Netherlands as well as the islands units. If we're rewording, I'd like to remove the distinction between the formal name and the short name we currently use if possible. It may also be time to consider removing the Antilles clarification, as many years have now passed since its dissolution. CMD (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Question why should we bullet anything? Given that this page is about sovereign states, and not dependent territories, it seems like we are dedicating a lot of space to dependencies. They really have nothing to do with "status and recognition of sovereignty" which is the subject of the column. All of the proposed criteria seem rather arbitrary, which is by necessity as there is not any clear, universal definition that can be applied. Why not just replace the bullets with text, so we don't need to keep having this argument about what deserves a bullet and what doesn't, and link to dependent territory and country specific articles where the subject can be treated in detail? TDL (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not say the bulleting is useless per se, but there is definitely quite a bit of inconsistency and arbitrariness in how it has been used so far. My proposal would be to adopt a few clear, streamlined criteria on what should be bulleted, so as to keep as few bulleted items on the page as possible. Ladril (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

So, assuming my recent edits stick with other editors, here is what I find to be the current criteria for bulleting (sorry for the repetitiveness, but there are way too many issues to address here):

1. Two federal areas of Bosnia created by international agreement: Federation of Bosnia and Republika Srpska. 2. Dependent territories of sovereign states, as listed on the dependent territory page. 3. Two self-governing areas under the control of Pakistan: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. 4. Two territories whose sovereignty is being disputed by the United States (not currently listed on the dependent territory page): Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank. Not sure what business these have being on the page, since they are uninhabited and other disputes over uninhabited territory are not covered.Ladril (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think TDL that the why bullet question is reasonable, but saying simply to put things into text merely shifts the question elsewhere. Given that we have quite a few things that we think worth noting in the text, including dependent territories which I would personally keep as areas that fall outside a sovereign state despite being under their jurisdiction, I think bullet points help add a layer of differentiation, and keeps lists such as under the UK more readable.
 * Regarding Ladril's points, your 3 and 4 I both see as variations of 2, as the Pakistan territories are according to Xavier legally not integrated, and the US claimed territories are claimed as dependant territories. Whether we should note their being disputed in non-US rows is another question. CMD (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether dependencies and the Kashmiri territories should be bulleted or not is currently not being debated. Basically, most of us are in favour of keeping them bulleted. My greatest points of contention are 1 and 4. Since you addressed number 4, I will do the same. To what extent can you claim that Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo are dependent territories of the US when the country exercises little actual control over them? Comoros considers Mayotte to be an integral part of its territory, but we are not mentioning that here. Ladril (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The American unincorporated territories (external territories) exist dejure under American law. They are not claimed as integral areas (incorporated areas) of the united states, but are claimed by the untied states to be external territories in the same manner as Jarvis, Howland, Baker, and Navassa.XavierGreen (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In regards to the Bosnian polities, as I stated above, the sovereignty of Bosnia over those polities is explicitly restricted by an international treaty, as is Norway's sovereignty over Svalbard, the PRC over the SARs ect. Whether or not a polity is included on the list of dependent territories page is meaningless.XavierGreen (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo. The Falklands exist de jure as part of Argentina under Argentinian law, and Mayotte exists the jure as part of Comoros under Comorian law. In fact, Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo are considered parts of Colombia and Nicaragua under the respective laws of those countries. However, we are not including information on these other claims on the page. As long as the U.S. exercises no actual control on Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo, listing these territories amounts to exceptional treatment (and the problems with the U.S. entry do not stop there, but let's leave it at that for the time being).
 * No, the difference is that Argentina and the Comoros claim those areas as integral parts of their countries. The United States does not claim that Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo are part of the United States, the United States claims that they are external territories possessed by the United States.XavierGreen (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced the difference warrants inclusion in the article. It is only tangential to the topic at best, and the U.S. entry is exceedingly long already. Ladril (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Its long because the United States has a large number of external territories, for completeness all external territories should be included or none of them at all.XavierGreen (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, "has" is not the same as "claims". Besides, I think the effort spent on detailing ALL the external territories of a given country should be focused on the dependent territory page. Ladril (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: dependent territories and international agreements. As ascertained by at least three editors on this thread, the bullets are being used to denote mostly dependent territories. I don't see why you or anyone else would think that denoting dependent territories and areas created by international agreements in the same way is an "irrelevant issue". It is relevant because we need to define exactly what the bullets are supposed to represent in order to prevent WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, or WP:FLAGCRUFT. Ladril (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry If I was unclear, but I wasn't suggesting that we list every dependency in text, just that we describe them. For example, the UK entry would change from:

Member of the EU. The United Kingdom is a Commonwealth realm consisting of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. The United Kingdom has the following overseas territories: The British monarch has direct sovereignty over three self-governing Crown dependencies:
 * 🇦🇮 Anguilla
 * 🇧🇲 Bermuda
 * 🇮🇴 British Indian Ocean Territory
 * British Virgin Islands
 * 🇰🇾 Cayman Islands
 * Falkland Islands
 * 🇬🇮 Gibraltar
 * 🇲🇸 Montserrat
 * Pitcairn Islands
 * South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
 * 🇹🇨 Turks and Caicos Islands
 * British Antarctic Territory
 * 🇹🇨 Turks and Caicos Islands
 * British Antarctic Territory
 * 🇬🇬 Guernsey, with three dependencies:
 * Alderney
 * Herm
 * Sark
 * 🇮🇲 Isle of Man
 * 🇯🇪 Jersey

to Member of the EU. The United Kingdom is a Commonwealth realm consisting of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. The United Kingdom has 14 overseas territories, and the British monarch has direct sovereignty over three self-governing Crown dependencies.


 * This greatly streamlines the entry, giving an overview of the structure without a long list of every dependency, while linking to the relevant articles with more details. At the moment, the entry has way more text describing things that aren't part of the UK than things that are.  Even if we settle on what to list, then we have debates on what flags to show, etc.  TDL (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This may work fine for some dependent areas, but what do you propose we do about constituent countries, for example? Ladril (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally I prefer listing them, as then this page lists all entities, sovereign states and those outside (through this argument I'd be okay removing the Guernsey subunits, unless my understanding of their status is wrong). It's not explicitly part of the criteria for the page, but I think it adds interesting context. I don't understand Ladril's distinction with constituent countries though. CMD (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer listing them as well, I believe that any polity over which a state hold sovereignty over in a subjugated manner or in which its sovereignty over is limited should be bulleted, which in effect is the status quo. In regards to the Netherlands, the relationship between the four realms is more akin to that of a personal union than it is one of constituent countries.XavierGreen (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind. On second look, I believe I understand the essence of TDL's proposal now. Ladril (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On a different but pertinent topic, and without wanting to open yet another extra-long debate on the political status of a dependency, my understanding of the status of Alderney, Sark, and Herm is that they are associated with Guernsey. This means that Guernsey performs some functions on their behalf, but has little or no authority over them. It also means that their relationship to the British Crown is direct. Without wanting to delve into another debate similar to the Cooks for the moment, I would say they deserve to be mentioned even if only in a streamlined fashion. Ladril (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not acceptable for sovereign states like the Marshall Islands and Palua and Micronesia to be bulleted under another sovereign state, like the United States. Their compact of association does not mean that these countries fall under the sovereignty of the US in any way. Furthermore, we don't mention all claims by countries over part of an other country that they don't actually control in a bulleted list. That would be a practice that is not the purpose of this article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In some respects, they are not fully sovereign states having given up various elements of sovereignty, such as defense, ect to a foreign nation. Thus in some respects the US and New Zealand associated states are akin to protectorates. It has long been consensus here to list them in a bulleted fashion just as dependent territories and areas with sovereignty restricted by international agreement are (like Svalbard) are. In regards to Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo bank, as I stated above, de-jure the united states asserts separate sovereignty over each in the manner of an unincorporated (external) territory. The united states does actively assert sovereignty over these areas through coast guard patrols. There are several other uninhabited territories mentioned on this page that are claimed by other countries, for example Navassa Island. If we are going to bullet dependent territories, we should include them all.XavierGreen (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You forget that a compact of free assocuation with New Zealand or the UK are not the same things. They are certainly not the same thing as a compact of free association with the United States, which were entered into by independent countries. You don't seem to understand that these are very different agreements. Under the same token you should bullet Liechtenstein under Switzerland and Monaco under France. Why aren't parts of Gujarat (which Pakistan claims but doesn't control) not bulleted under Pakistan when the two beaches claimed by the USA are? Why is the part of the Ems estuary that the Netherlands claim, but is expoited by Germany not bulletted under the Netherlands. You are potentially making a big mess of this article! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing anything, in fact what I am asserting for was the status quo on this page for a long time prior to user:Ladrill's edits and opening of this thread. The difference between the disputes you assert is that they involve integral areas of sovereign territories. The dispute involving Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo Bank involve the existence of the entirety of those two dependant territories, much in the same way as the existence of Somaliland is disputed in its entirety.XavierGreen (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The Trust territories moved directly from trusteeship to Compacts of Free Association with the U.S. They did not have an intermediate stage where they were considered fully independent. Ladril (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless, they are considered as sovereign states by virtue of the very same Compact of Free Association that you mention here! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Xavier, you have me convinced for now. I also agree with you on the Marshall Islands et al. sovereignty issue. Ladril (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The compact of association between the USA and its former Trust territories is not a matter of sovereignty. It is an international agreement between fully sovereign states. The article should not suggest that they are in any way subsets of the USA. As for the Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo cases, the International court has awarded them to Colombia. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The case you referred to litigated only the claims between Nicaragua and Colombia, it did not consider the other claimants, including the United States. Furthermore the United States is not a party to the framework establishing the court in question, and as such it has no binding authority over the United States.XavierGreen (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We must pay careful attention to external sources on sovereignty (especially when discussing Pacific nations, which have a complicated history). The former Trust territories began to be considered sovereign states when they moved into Compacts of Free Association with the U.S. The U.S., however, has never stopped having control over some of their functions which are normally reserved for sovereign states (such as transit over their territorial waters). This is why a scholar has claimed that "...the security agreement would continue to limit Micronesian sovereignty unless surrendered by the United States." . That is one reason to keep them listed under the U.S. entry. Another one is that these territories are often discussed as examples of associated statehood similar to the Cooks or the former Caribbean associates of the UK (including, but not limited to, our own associated state page). This gives the reader greater clarity regarding the position of these territories on the international stage. Ladril (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, here is what seem to me to be the current criteria for bulleting:

1. Associated states 2. Dependent territories (including inhabited and uninhabited, and regardless of actual control) 3. Subdivisions of sovereign states created by international agreements 4. Two self-governing areas controlled by Pakistan: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan

Of these, the one I find to be the least justified is number 3. I´m not sure the specific origins of subdivisions alone merit bulleting them (especially given the fact that we are not bulleting autonomous areas). I would be more convinced of this criterion if I could find a source where Hong Kong, Republica Srpska and Svalbard are discussed as similar instances. Ladril (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)\
 * The CIA world fact book commonly treats Svalbard, Jan Mayan, and the SARs as dependencies. The sovereignty over each of these polities by the possessor country is restricted by international treaty. For example, the PRC is obligated by treaty to govern Hong Kong and Macau in a specific manner. The Svalbard treaty signifigantly encumbers Norweigan control over Svalbard by granting a large number of concessions to the various signatory powers of the treaty (each signatory has the right to use Svalbard's natural resources subject to only minor Norwiegan restrictions, the citizens of the signatory states have free access, the islands are demilitarized), ect.XavierGreen (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's assume we treat Svalbard, Jan Mayen, and the SARs as dependencies (in a similar fashion to the dependent territory page). If you do a Venn diagram between "dependent territories" and "subdivisions of sovereign states created by international agreements", the only areas falling outside the intersection would be the federal areas of Bosnia. I'm not sure we need another category just for the federal areas of a single country. I would lean towards unbulleting the Bosnian units. This way, the bullets would represent three types of territories:


 * 1. Associated states
 * 2. Dependent territories
 * 3. Two self-governing areas controlled by Pakistan: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan


 * In my view, it would be a good idea to reduce the number of bulleted items until they only encompass the three categories above. Ladril (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But Svalbard, the SARs, and Aland are not dependencies, they are integrated portions of the countries which possess sovereignty over them. Bosnia's sovereignty over its federated bodies is limited by international treaty, it is forced to govern those areas in a manner dictated by treaty.XavierGreen (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The "not dependencies" argument is slippery, since formally overseas France, Greenland, and Aruba are also integral parts of their respective states, yet they are bulleted. I would say you would have to make a decision on what you would consider to be a "dependent territory", and would then have to consider unbulleting many items on the table. Or you could accept the view from the CIA factbook and treat Hong Kong, Svalbard, etc., as dependencies. I don't see how hopping back and forth between "they are dependencies" and "they are not" is going to help us move forward. Ladril (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

To reiterate, I would suggest that entities created by international agreements who are considered dependencies in the CIA World Factbook be treated as dependent territories. This way, we could remove the bullets from the federal areas of Bosnia. Also, only the three types of entities below would remain bulleted:

1. Associated states 2. Dependent territories (this would include all the areas we currently treat as dependencies, including overseas France, Denmark, and Netherlands) 3. Two self-governing areas controlled by Pakistan: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. Ladril (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "Associated states" is as meaningless a phrase as "constituent country", as it does not denote any specific setup, but instead covers multiple setups which are each very different. Regarding the American ones, I do not think they should be bulleted under the US entry, although I agree that it should be mentioned in their extents as it currently is. If they are to be kept, it should not be under the arbitrary criteria of "Associated states", but under their current one as sovereignty limited by treaty, which would bring us back to the Bosnia question. Ladril it would also be useful if you were to expound on how you feel your criteria 2 and 3 differ, given I continue to feel that 3 is a subset of 2. CMD (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I must disagree with your first statement. There is a wide array of external sources in which the US associated states are discussed alongside other similar cases (such as the CI/Niue, the former associated states of the UK, etc.). Here is one example: . While there are important differences between the specific cases, taken together they form an important analytic category that should be taken into account in an encyclopedia. That is my point of view, at least. I will respond to the rest of your post shortly. Ladril (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is such a criterion as "sovereignty limited by treaty" this is not expressly indicated in the article under any of the entries. I don't believe the criterion really applies to the Marshall Islands et al., though I could be wrong. Also, introducing such a criteria would mean taking other cases into account (such as Liechtenstein, which somebody noted previously). Ladril (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all apologies for my earlier unhappy action in this matter. Second I must say that I agree with CMD. An associated state of country A, is not the same animal as an associated state of country B. Even if they are discussed alongside each other in the same venue (a book) somewhere. The associated states of the UK were not sovereign states at the time they were in existence in any discernible manner, while the associated states of the USA clearly are. The Compact of Free association of 1986 itself, granted these countries their sovereignty. I think it is confusing when sovereign states (like Belau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, that are considered as independent nations) are bulleted as "subsets" of another sovereign state, whatever further circumstances laid down in international agreements between them (which are not for us WP editors, to interpret per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), may be. Therefore I don't think we as WP editors can adjudicate these matters, as User:Ladril did above, as "similar cases". Point is that these countries were declared to be sovereign states by the very Compact of Free Association we are talking about here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I´m not "adjucating" anything. I just referred those interested to reliable third-party sources. That's neither WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH. Ladril (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That having been said Ladril, correct me if I'm wrong however, the source you mention in this particular matter is inaccessible to me for some reason, with the exception of the index page. I am able to read the first one you mention. I do think that it can be said to speak about the consequences of what is basically an international agreement where the Pacific Island states are concerned. Most countries are somewhat limited in their freedom of action by international agreements, which are however freely and voluntarily entered in to. Although this compact is an extraordinary international agreement. I would be curious to know to what passages you are referring to concerning the second book you mention and how those would support your stance in this matter, specially about how different occurrences of "associated states" have similar properties that make them comparable to each other in regard to the subject of sovereign status or lack thereof. I've been reading these compacts of association where the USA is concerned and they clearly speak of sovereignty. I wonder however if these US compacts (but this is a place where I may be wandering into the realm of WP:OR) could be comparable to what once where protectorates. The comparison between this situation and former protectorates of France (like Morocco and Tunis) may not be entirely apt, but these countries were officially regarded as sovereign states, while in reality being treated as colonies. Could you give relevant quotes from the third party sources you mention? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct Ladril that these various entities are often discussed together (and I am enjoying reading the sources you have provided), but that does not by itself grant any inherent meaning to the term, and indeed the sources you mention discuss entities in addition to the CFA states and CI/Niue. The "Associated Statehood in International Law" book explicitly notes in the introduction "A word of caution needs to be expressed here. The use of the terms 'Associated State' and 'Free Association' does not, of itself, aid recognition of the relationship that is the subject of this study...In fact, it is impossible to distinguish a priori Associated states from other dependant entities." CMD (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed with CMD and Hebel. As interesting as it's been following this discussion and reading the sources, it still constitutes WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Offering a full summary of the book would not be in keeping with the format of discussion here. The idea expressed in this and several other sources on this topic is that territories such as these represent a special path to decolonization - one that is an alternative to both complete independence and integration into a former colonial power. Free association is an arrangement in which some areas, which would not normally have sufficient resources to become independent on their own, move into a form of statehood in which some of their sovereign functions are performed by a different state. This sort of arrangement is worth mentioning since it places some limits on the sovereignty of the areas in question. As a criterion it is at least as relevant as the "created by international agreement" one since it deals directly with the sovereignty question. Ladril (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is certainly true that associated statehood is discussed as a path by which polities can stop being considered colonies while not being considered independent or part of another country. However, the conclusions you draw from that show the misunderstandings that may come of treating the term as a discrete category. There is not really a "this sort of arrangement". In the very sources you have provided, it notes that contrary to what you state, the Cook Islands and Niue have no limits on their sovereignty, being able to act as they see fit. CMD (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The association arrangements may be different for the US associates and the NZ associates, but in both cases they impose some limits on the sovereignty of the entities in question. The former Trust territories, for instance, do not have complete control over their territorial waters under the terms of their Compacts. In the case of the Cook Islands, they do not have their own citizenship, meaning that New Zealand determines to some degree how they should treat their subjects. In both cases the association arrangement allows an external state to exercise a certain degree of sovereignty over them. This is why I believe it is accurate to bullet them both. Ladril (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All international treaties impose some limits on sovereignty. The sources you've provided note that for the CFA states those limits are more onerous than most, but they do not extend similar notes to the CI/Niue. The CI/Niue lack their own citizenship through their own sovereign choice, which they may unilaterally change at any time they choose. CMD (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Even assuming that, the fact remains that what is currently bulleted in the article 1) has no clearly defined criteria, and 2) reflects a wide variety of cases (the political status of Puerto Rico is not the same as that of Gibraltar or French Polynesia, for instance). We can spend the remainder of our lives nitpicking about specific differences between polities, but until people do not define a small number of broad criteria that are supposed to be represented on the table, things are going to remain as they have: everyone is going to keep bulleting/unbulleting entries using ad hoc criteria. This is going to result in lots of wasted time and energy for editors of this page. Ladril (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem with Niue and the Cook Islands is that they haven't actually declared sovereignty, while Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, that may indeed have agreed to more limitations on their freedom of action, have. Which is a difference of some importance. The issue here is how these entities self identify. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All of the aforementioned have declared themselves sovereign. The association arrangements mean that they have ceded some of their functions to other states, but these functions ultimately rest with themselves. Ladril (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The CFA states have declared statehood, hence my aversion to inclusion in the USA's entry. CMD (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with CMD. The CI's and Niue however have not declared sovereign statehood. They have memoranda of understanding with New Zealand that say that the CI's and Niue must unilaterally decide their status before it can be said to have profoundly changed. Such decisions have not been forthcoming as of this moment. In other words "almost but not quite there yet". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The CI and Niue have declared sovereign statehood in several joint communiques with other states. Even if New Zealand says it does not consider them to be fully independent, that's only their point of view. The point of view of the other states must be taken into account as well in order to remain faithful to the WP:NPOV guideline. Ladril (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That has been said before by you and others on this and other pages about the matter. I consider it to be original research as the sources for these messages are in some cases doubtful and also the text of some of them has been heavily interpreted, as you probably know I have said before. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Other editors (me among them) have spent considerable amounts of time substantiating with reliable sources why they disagree with you. If you do not want to be convinced there is not much any of us can do. Ladril (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that, but I'm not convinced. Also not by the reliability and / or the explicitness (do they actually say what is added to the article) of the sources mentioned. Anyway, as the sovereign of the CI and Niue is the Queen in right of New-Zealand, explicit speech by that country, jointly with the CI's and Niue, should matter more than interpreted language in memoranda with others, the depiction of which by editors is again, doubtful in my eyes. The consensus on this page is as far as I can follow it, that the matter remains contentious, which probably means that some other editors are not convinced either. As indeed are some actual countries. But let me also say that this discussion should perhaps be better conducted on the talkpage of the relevant article. So I would perhaps have been better advised not to bring it up here at this particular point. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) As far as reliability of sources goes, what has been shown have been direct statements by the states concerned, as well as interpretations by qualified scholars that have been put into paper. So far, both of them agree that the CI and Niue constitute separate states whose sovereignty has been recognized by part of the international community. As has been proven with sources before, the "Queen in right of New Zealand" part refers to the Realm, not to one of the three states that make up that same realm. This is pretty much beyond doubt by now. If you cannot find a source that interprets current evidence in a way similar to your thinking, please consider whether it might be your own interpretation what needs revising. Ladril (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I am always willing to consider, but as of this point I'm not convinced all of the sources mentioned make direct and explicit statements on the matter. On another note, The Realm of New Zealand was first defined in in a description of the tasks of the Governor General. The Queen in right of New Zealand is an older institution than that, and she is the sovereign of New Zealand, so I still don't understand your above point. These memoranda are JOINT declarations made by three entities (of whatever nature) sharing the same sovereign. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we are: 1) straying from the topic of the current thread, and 2) trying to discuss several issues at the same time. I suggest we take a step back and continue any discussion on the eligibility of the CI and Niue on a different thread. It's been a long time since I last discussed this, meaning that I also need some time to collect the sources we have used to discuss the topic. Let's use the current thread to discuss the bulleting. Ladril (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. You are right. As it is contentious in other ways..... we should leave it separate from this. As I've said before, I shouldn't have brought it up here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

So far, here's what seem to me to be the current criteria for the bulleting. To reiterate, this is not necessarily what I think should be bulleted, but what editors seem to have agreed to bullet:

1. National subdivisions created by international agreements 2. Associated states 3. Dependent territories (under a wide definition including those listed on the dependent territory page) 4. Two disputed entities controlled by Pakistan: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan.

My question would be: is it okay to add these as bulleting criteria to the main article space? Of course, there is room for improvement in the above text. I'm not saying it has to be set in stone. Hopefully, however, it gives editors a clearer idea of what should be bulleted and what shouldn't, according to current consensus. It also serves to maintain consistency across entries. Ladril (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Donetsk and Lugansk
Why they aren't in the list of unrecognized states like Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinusepsid (talk • contribs) 20:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Becausethey are regognised by no other states. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That isn't the reason. The reason is that they are still engaged in Ukraine's active civil war, albeit at a more subdued level than a few years ago, and so the states don't have stable boundaries. It's the same reason Azawad in Mali was never added, and the Islamic State is absent. The Abkhazia etc. conflicts had been cold for several years before they were added to Wikipedia. If a real cease-fire comes into play and Donetsk and Lugansk don't get reabsorbed into Ukraine, then they'd go here. Astrofreak92 (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. It's more the lack of sources calling them a state. Azawad actually did have stable borders, albeit for a very short time. It imploded from within not due to war. CMD (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look back through the various lengthy discussions on the issue, its not that the DPR and LPR do not meet the declarative theory, its that we do not have a reliable source which states that they meet the declarative theory (as CMD stated above). Also, as CMD stated, Azawad was added to the list but was removed because its government no longer controlled any territory in the area it claimed. It then later rescinded its declaration of independence. XavierGreen (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Becausethey are regognised by no other states" This goes against wikipedia article about Sovereignty, you change the definition from
 * This governing body has the "full right and power [..] to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies"
 * That is the one on the article, to
 * This governing body has the "full right and power [..] to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies" as long as I think he has the "full right and power [..] to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies"177.92.128.26 (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is also the (unstated) problem that these are not intentionally independent states. They are regions that were founded with the goal of annexation by Russia (as with Crimea).  When that goal became politically untenable, then autonomy within Ukraine became a goal.  Only if (near complete) autonomy within Ukraine is not achieved will independence become the goal.  It has never been clear that complete sovereignty has been an unambiguously stated goal either separately (as two individual countries) or together (as a unified "Novorossiya").  Not only are there unstable borders and an unstable military situation, there is an unstable political situation as well.  --Taivo (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Faroe Islands
There should be a section on the Faroe Islands, as they are partially self-governing. I'll add it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbreagornks (talk • contribs) 00:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)