Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive 8

Kashmir flags
There are two regions of Kashmir that are under the military protection of Pakistan: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan (this last one also known as the 'Northern Areas'). Each of these has a Pakistan-sponsored local government. Thus, they are separate jurisdictions from any other state, including Pakistan (they can be called 'quasi-states´). In my opinion, the Pakistan entry should be modified so that they are listed using bullets and their respective flags.

See this discussion for extra reference. Ladril (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur, they are not legally part of pakistan and cannot be listed in the same manner as the first order subdivisions of pakistan.XavierGreen (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That discussion didn't end very conclusively and I'm not sure the legal situation here is as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Most sources state that their position in international law is undefined, that they are not legally part of pakistan yet largely administered by it. A situation somewhat akin to an occupied state with a residual government.XavierGreen (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If a revision of the sources is necessary, and new sources are required, it can be done. Ladril (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In order to help the discussion advance, which of the following points are in dispute?

1) That Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan have not been incorporated into Pakistan. 2) That each of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan has its own government. 3) That their governments are not sovereign states but local administrations. 4) That both of them are under the aegis of Pakistan. Ladril (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have clearly demonstrated point 1). Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a fairly accurate historical document by the UN that states that Azad Kashmir has not been incorporated into Pakistan: []

This book (p. 180) [] explicitly states that the Northern Areas (Gilgit-Baltistan) have never been incorporated into Pakistan. It's a fairly recent (2003) book.

Pakistan manages its relations with Kashmir (including both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan) through a government ministry of Kashmir affairs. [] Ladril (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if the situation is not so clear cut, they should still be added for their notability. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion is not whether to add them as separate list entries (no one in the present discussion seems to be advocating this), but whether the text in the Pakistan entry should be written as it stands now. Ladril (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think listing them as they are now sort of implies they're dependencies, when they more closely resemble autonomous areas. The fact that they're part of a larger territorial dispute makes their lack of formal integration less of an indicator than it would be for say, a British overseas territory. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In a way, they are dependencies, because Pakistan has considerable control over both. Now about the second point, we should be careful about the use of the term "autonomy", which is flung around here as a catch-word for any sort of political arrangement. Based on what I've read on the subject:

1. Autonomous areas are regions within states that receive powers of self-government plus the ability to make internal legislation.

2. Areas with self-government are regions within states that receive powers of self-government but not the ability to make internal legislation.

Of course, the precise meanings of both terms vary from country to country but this can be a starting point. Since the countries in question are not part of Pakistan, they cannot defined as 'autonomous'. I'm writing this down here because in the future I'll be insisting on a precise terminology for each case. This is the only way to write a decent encyclopedia, after all. Ladril (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoa, those definitions are waaaaaaay too narrow. The meaning of the term "autonomy" can change radically depending on the specific autonomy arrangement you're talking about. Even more so for "self-government". This is absolutely the kind of thing which has to be determined on a case by case basis. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Azad Kashmir had declared independence and maintained it for a few years before the pakistanis created the system that is in place now. I don't know is Gilgit-Baltistan has ever declared independence. The left overs of the Azad Kashmir government do have a large level of domestic power, but no power in their foreign affairs. The relationship seems to be much like a protectorate would be, nominal domestic independence with no say in foriegn relations.XavierGreen (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Xavier, that the relationship is similar to that of a protectorate, but not quite. My opinion is that Pakistan officially considers the whole of Kashmir a disputed territory, much like Israel considers the West Bank and Gaza a disputed territory - that is, a territory that belongs to no state. Ladril (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the significant nature of the dispute here and the tenuousness of the evidence, I think presenting these areas as if they are dependencies violates WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. We don't treat these territories as dependencies on any other part of the encyclopedia, and their political arrangement -- unique and vaguely defined as it is -- doesn't really coincide with the other dependent territories that we list in this way. I really think that Pakistan's entry would be much more clear if we listed these territories in paragraph form and succinctly explained the nature of their constitutional arrangement, like we do with autonomous areas, special territories, occupied territories, and disputed territories.
 * Also, if you're saying that Pakistan regards Azad Kashmir the same way that Israel regards Gaza, then that is in no way a dependency relationship. You should be trying to show that Pakistan regards Azad Kashmir the same way that Denmark regards Greenland. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why always I take much care to attach the necessary caveats and qualifications to what I'm saying. I said that "In a [certain] way, they are dependencies, because Pakistan has considerable control over both." I never said they should be in the list of dependent territories, nor is my intention to imply that they legally are dependencies. But they are indeed subordinated to Pakistan (which is neither a POV nor a SYNTH), which is a first point towards the idea of mentioning them under the Pakistan entry.


 * Changing the current setup would mean at least two things:


 * 1) That the India entry would have to be reformulated as well, since both India and Pakistan dispute the territory of Kashmir.


 * 2) That the Israel entry, which describes its control of the West Bank and Gaza, would have to be reformulated as well.


 * "You should be trying to show that Pakistan regards Azad Kashmir the same way that Denmark regards Greenland."


 * I'm sorry, but since this is your claim, it's you who should defend it. Can't see the parallel between Greenland and Gaza, really. Ladril (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we should remove the mention of Azad Kashmir. It just has to be in paragraph form. The list was recently reformatted to remove flags and bullet points from everything that isn't a dependent territory. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Azad Kashmir and Ghilit are not legally part of pakistan, yet are still administered in part by it. Azad Kashmir especially is practically the same as a protectorate (its defacto soveriegn government ceded control over its foriegn affairs to pakistan), which in the soveriegn states by year are listed the same way dependencies are. Ghilit is a bit different in that there never was any independent authority which administered the territory prior to the pakistani administratioon (the authority administiring its domestic affairs was created by pakistan.)XavierGreen (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a mistake to treat Azad Kashmir as if it is a protectorate when it doesn't legally enjoy that status. Orange Tuesday (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was never suggesting putting them in as separate entities! Sorry for the confusion.
 * Looking through all the sources the defacto and the dejure seem to be very muddled. I recommend adding them in anyway, as they are definitely not first level administrative entities, and they do hold a special status of sovereignty (at least dejure). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Associated States of the USA (Compact of Free Association)
Going along with the edit, undo, discuss rules, I am going to ask why countries that are under a compact of free association with the USA need that information included. It is pretty much just an economic and military pact, and I disagree with its need for inclusion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Free association is not just an economic and military pact. It's a political status that has implications in international law. Japan, for example, was at first very reluctant to recognize Micronesia as a sovereign state, and several clarifications were needed. Ladril (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but also I agree with Chipmunkdavis - the CFA is a bilateral agreement and it is not listed on the USA entry. Maybe there were a discussion about this in the past? I can imagine reason for not inclusion on the USA entry, that listing CFA states there would imply that their independence and sovereignity are somehow subordinate/connected to the USA? This is different from the "Commonwealth relam" notes on Australia/Canada/UK/etc., because they share the head-of-state. Alinor (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

criteria for inclusion
in the respection section it says "sovereign states with general international recognition:" How do you define "general" in this case" (as backed by sources, not on a whim). What is the magic number that makes recognition general? China/Tawian/israel and im sure some more countries are not recognised and therefore in the list of special mentions.Lihaas (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * United Nations member states, plus the Vatican, which is universally recognised. Night w (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are going to hate me, but apparently the Holy See is not universally recognized. I don't know exactly which countries do not recognize them. Ladril (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * General recognition means the majority of states recognize that state as soveriegn, so theoretically half of the soveriegn states +1 would be general recognition since the majority of states recognize that entity as a soveriegn polity.XavierGreen (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that. I'm just pointing out that recognition of the Holy See is not universal (100 %). Since I've not provided any evidence to verify it, I will not insist on modifying its entry for the moment. Ladril (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec with below) Not sure I agree with that. General recognition should mean that we can assume recognition in the absence of evidence to the contrary.  As things stand, that would mean UN member states plus the Vatican (the UN's only non-member observer state).


 * For the record, and based on the article Foreign relations of the Holy See, the Holy See has diplomatic relations with all UN member states except: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Brunei, Burma, PR China, the Comoros, Laos, Malaysia, the Maldives, Mauritania, North Korea, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tuvalu and Vietnam. That's where to start looking for cases of non-recognition. Pfainuk talk 19:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the recognition of the Holy See, I'm quite sure the non-recognizers, if they indeed exist, are among the group Pfainuk mentions (it could not be any other way, really). As for the general idea that we should assume all UN members recognize each other, I disagree. International relations have a history, and the still-recent Cold War meant states would not recognize each other for ideological reasons (not that all instances of recognition are well documented). Given the usual scarcity of information about these matters, what we can assume about two states that do not have formal relations with one another is that, well, we don't know. This doesn't contradict the requirement that we should use explicit statements of non-recognition to inform the encyclopedia articles. Ladril (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * General recognition only needs to be a rather low bar, imho. I'd think the goal here is to put what common readers expect (Taiwan) but not puppet states (Turkish Cyprus). SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Kosovo and (as I recall) Palestine are recognized by more states than Taiwan is. I think that the simple criterion of U.N. membership plus Vatican works better than trying to determine some mathematical formula for recognition.  Recognition is also a slightly fuzzy delineation.  A state, such as Taiwan, can lack formal diplomatic relations, but still be a very vibrant player on the international scene as far as science, business, travel, sport, etc. are concerned.  On the other hand, Somalia barely exists as a state, but it still has wide diplomatic recognition.  Common readers can differ on their perceptions of what to expect as well.  Muslim readers might expect to see Palestine, but Jewish readers would not.  Turkish readers might expect to see Northern Cyprus, but Greek readers would not.  We cannot predict what English-speaking readers might expect and what they might not in the case of this list, so a more formal, simplistic delineation works better here.  That's why we have the list of "Other States" at the bottom where all the disputed states that have a defined territory, but lack U.N. membership, can be included.  --Taivo (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no numerical requirement/barrier. If some entitiy is UN member it assumed that it has "general recognition to be independent and sovereign". In many cases the smaller countries do not have many "official declarations of recognition" (and alternatively the same very small states do not make declarations of recognition to all other 192 states - only to their most important partners), but still nobody disputes their independence and sovereignty - there is no dispute (like PRC-Taiwan/etc. - like those in the "other states" category) and no DENIAL of recognition (like Israel-Arab - here Israel passes into general recognition because of its UN membership). The same rule applies to UN non-members: if there are no disputes/denials the entity is assumed to have "general recognition to be independent and sovereign" - this applies to the Vatican, SMOM (the single case of non-state sovereign entity) and maybe the currently discussed above Cook Islands and Niue. Alinor (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Also, this way is more objective than accomodating to "user expectations" that could be hard to recognise (or simply wrong). Alinor (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See also previous discussion (first three comment-sections in the archive). Alinor (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

List of sovereign entities
I was making new entries for CI/Niue above and also made entry for SMOM - in case in the future we decide to make a List of sovereign entities. I am not sure that it would be useful to have both lists, but anyway here is a possible SMOM entry for the main "Internationally recognized sovereign entities" section (that will be accompanied by "entities with limited recognition" and "excluded" sections):
 * "List of sovereign entities" = "List of sovereign states" + SMOM (+ maybe some "limited recognition entities" in addition to the current 10 states - like government-in-exile, etc.?)

Alinor (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no need for that, really. Maybe if there were other sovereign entities that are not states it would be worth the effort. Ladril (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, me too. This was just a by-product of the CI/Niue entries. Alinor (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we could include a third main section "Internationally recognized sovereign non-state entities" with the above entry, and rename the article to List of sovereign states and entities. Maybe this would be more in line with the notion of sovereignty - as we currently list states and exclude the non-states. Anyway, for such a change, we would need broad consensus. Alinor (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Having in mind the Afghanistan situation between 1996-2001, when the "official" government was confined to a very small part of the territory and the Taleban Emirate had control over most of the country, including the capital (and was recognized by a few states) - maybe it would be good to have a list with states + other entities (as the Taleban Emirate was a de facto state, and the "official Afghanistan" was de facto government-in-exile). But as I am not sure if government-in-exile are considered "sovereign" - maybe the name of such a list should be different... Alinor (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Georgia - Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia
Should we mention the Georgian de-jure Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia entity along Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and Autonomous Republic of Adjara? Alinor (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not de jure autonomous yet is it? If not, no reason to add it in. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is exactly de jure and not de facto (as de facto control is exercised by South Ossetia government - on of the "limited recognition" states). I'm not sure about "autonomous" - looking trough the discussions/edits here it seems that there was some dispute already what means autonomous/federal and for what countries what entities should be mentioned in the extant. So, that's why I write here - so that somebody who knows eihter says "no, it is this and that, these do not belong there" or just adds it (if it fits). Alinor (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe Abkhazia and Adjara are in because they are/were de jure autonomous. I don't think South Ossetia ever was/is. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * De-jure (in Georgian law, because Russia/etc. would object of course) South Ossetia previously was South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast, then dissolved, then was established the Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia. All of this is "official". In constrast we have the Republic of South Ossetia as the "de-facto/limited recognition" state.
 * What I can't say is, if PAESO covers the criteria established on this page for inclusion in the note. Alinor (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

notes on UN member states, not recognized by at least one other state
In the entries of these states currently we have the following relevant notes: These three seem OK to me. But unlike these, in the following cases there are no explicit notes on the non-recognition: Albeit TRNC and Turkey are mentioned, there is no "Cyprus is not recognized by one UN member: Turkey" or similar. Counter-claims mentioned, but no "PRC is not recognized by the 23 states that recognize ROC" or similar. Occupied/disputed territories mentioned, but no "Israel is not recognized as a state by 19 UN members" or similar. Alinor (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Armenia: Widely recognized member of the UN. Armenia is not recognized by one UN member, Pakistan.
 * North Korea: Widely recognized member of the UN. North Korea is not recognized by two UN members: Japan and South Korea.[42]
 * South Korea: Widely recognized member of the UN. ... South Korea is not recognized by one UN member: North Korea.
 * Cyprus: Widely recognized [25] member of the UN and the EU.[9] The northeastern part of the island is the de facto state of Northern Cyprus, recognized only by Turkey.
 * China (PRC): ... It also claims: Taiwan and associated islands, Kinmen, Matsu, the Pratas and Itu Aba, which are governed by the Republic of China (which claims sovereignty over the whole of China).[21]
 * Israel: Widely recognized member of the UN.[35] Israel maintains control over East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and parts of the West Bank. These areas are not internationally recognized as being part of Israel.[7] Israel no longer has a permanent military presence in the Gaza Strip, following its unilateral disengagement but is still arguably considered the occupying power under International law.[36][37][38][39][40]
 * Agreed, add the information about Cyprus China and Israel, but do not list the countries for PRC and Israel for simplicity. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree. This should be changed ASAP. Outback the koala (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done as there were no objections. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Night w has reverted the additions as they are already covered in footnotes. I think consistency is better. Should they all be footnotes? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is notable enough to be mentioned in the extant. Alinor (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to have all the explanations on recognition as footnotes, as I think some footnotes like those on China (which also has two entries linking to it) and Israel are a bit too long to add into already massively overloaded extent columns. Night w (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally don't mind as long as the extent doesn't end up like an essay. If its a short succinct point, separated from the rest of the text, I feel it doesn't disturb the reader. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine. Night w (talk) 05:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree too. In the proposal-30july above there is also a proposed variant for such notes. Basically the same as the quotes in this section here. Alinor (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I see they're changed. I'll leave someone else (Nightw?) to deal with the footnotes, I'm not that well versed in using them yet. Should they be deleted or altered? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of the three footnotes (China, Israel, Cyprus) only the China-note provides additional info/links. The Cyprus/Israel footnotes don't have additional info/links (additional, if we include "not recognized by ..." in the extant). So, maybe China footnote should remain and Israel/Cyprus be removed? Alinor (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

East Timor - Timor-Leste
Should we list Timor-Leste/East Timor under 'T'? Alinor (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I feel that this list should reflect the articles in question. If you want to bring this up in discussion on the article, I'd support it (I mean, Cote d'Ivoire got through). Another good change would be changing Burma to Myanmar, but once again, it should reflect article names. This is, after all, just a list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pages are typically named according to WP:COMMONAME, but that policy is designed to help users find articles through the search bar, and doesn't apply to article content directly. From a WP:V standpoint it might make sense to switch to Timor-Leste and Myanmar, since those are the names in the UNGEGN document we're now using as our primary source. (Not to mention the fact that " East Timor – Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste" looks a little silly). Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the policy taken on the articles themselves should be reflected here. The Myanmar debate is on hiatus till after the October elections, but I guess we could start discussing at the East Timor page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, though. Should we follow article titles? There's no requirement that we do. And other lists (e.g. UN members, Olympic-related lists) use different names depending on the context of what they're talking about. If our sources contain only official names, then shouldn't we be using those official names? Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On a similar note, should Taiwan be at "China, Republic of"? Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well this is a list of the names of countries, countries whose names appear at the top of their articles. Olympic lists use the names given to countries that participate in the olympics, where sometimes there are differences, like the combined Korean team and Chinese Taipei
 * On the note about Chinese Taipei (which if official documents is always called Taipei,Chinese with no space) I agree that Taiwan should be China, Republic of. That is the name of the article too, so no objections from that quarter. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there are other policies going on in article titles besides what the name of the country is. I mean, we wouldn't list Georgia under Georgia (country) or Ireland under Republic of Ireland. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't list Georgia like that for obvious reasons. I personally feel that the country is the primary topic anyway. Ireland has two statuses, one, the country, it the Republic of Ireland, the other is the island of Ireland. However, this being a list of countries, just Ireland is appropriate for the short name. Same for Georgia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's kind of my point though. We deviate from the article name for Ireland because the state's official name is "Ireland", not "Republic of Ireland". The article is named in order to help users differentiate between the island and the state, but we don't have to worry about article naming policy here.
 * I think Timor-Leste and Myanmar are kind of in the same situation. Their articles are named in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME in order to help users find them. But WP:COMMONNAME is just an article naming policy. Why should adhere to it when our main source contains different information? Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well this is a list of names, so WP:COMMONNAME could be said to apply. Personally I don't think countries should be named using COMMONNAME, as they have official names, and you can't really argue with an official name. Let's wait for a couple of opinions for now.
 * As for Republic of China, lets change that in a day or two if there are no objections. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, no. WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles, not names in general. I mean, we can definitely choose to follow it if we want to, but as a policy it doesn't apply. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As a rule, I think we ought to give whatever names our articles on the countries give. Generally speaking, the same arguments involved in article naming there are likely to apply in exactly the same way here - and in those cases it's far better for us to centralise the discussion.

Now, there are common sense exceptions to this. Clearly, Georgia should be preferred to Georgia (country). Clearly, we should follow WP:IMOS when naming Ireland. And it used to be that closest we had to an article on the State of Palestine was called Proposals for a Palestinian State - clearly, that's not appropriate. But in general, unless there's a clear and good reason not to, that rule should stand. Pfainuk talk 16:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Australian Territories
The article had previously stated that there were 9 territories, listing 7 external ones and not the internal ones. In actuality there are 3 external territories. Northern Territory, Jarvis Bay Territory, and the Captial Territory. I have updated the page to reflect that there are 10 territories rather than 9.XavierGreen (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe 9 is the most quoted because the Antarctic one isn't usually counted. Is that worth mentioning? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be counted. Especially since it's listed. Night w (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Spanish language in the Philippines

 * my recent edit; summary: "Spanish is not an official loanguage of the Philippines and is not a major minority language of the state"
 * reversion; summary: "I believe this has been discussed before, consensus to include due to historical significance"

I see no discussion in the current talk page. In archive 7, I see discussion here, but the result does not look like a consensus position. I don't see any discussion of this in earlier archives.

The article says that the list contains, "Name in English, the official languages and major minority languages of the state". Article XIV Section 7 of the Philippine constitution says: "Section 7. For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.

The regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as auxiliary media of instruction therein.

Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis." Here, only Filipino and English are specified as official languages. In terms of being a major minority language of the Philippines, Spanish ranks alongside Arabic behind regional languages.

I've placed a dubious tag alongside the listing of Spanish under the Philippines, pointing to this talk page section for discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before and it was agreed that Spanish could remain in the Philippines for historical reasons. There are other cases here where we've taken the "rules" as more guidelines.  It is impossible to devise literal rules that will work for 192+ different, individual cases.  I'm taking the "dubious" tag off.  Unless you can build a consensus to remove Spanish, then it should stay.  We're not going to tag a couple dozen different languages in this list just because you think they "violate" our guidelines.  --Taivo (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked for such a previous discussion and agreement and was unable to find it. I may have missed it, I guess. My methodology was to manually search the archives for "Philippines" and look at the text nearby search hits. Please provide a link to that previous discussion and agreement. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed in various places, especially a few months ago when the overall guidelines for languages were discussed. It was agreed that several types of languages would be included--official languages, "major" minority languages, and languages of historical interest (Spanish in the Philippines was included in this category).  The hidden note was recently placed there, but the Spanish has been fairly stable since that discussion.  Do you have a vested interest in removing it?  Most of the editors involved in the discussion didn't mind it being there since Spanish was the colonial language in the Philippines for several centuries and there was significant Spanish influence in the native languages.  There are still Spanish creoles and pidgins in the Philippines and as recently as the middle of the 20th century there were still Spanish speakers there.  --Taivo (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I placed the hidden note there. If you can make a good case that merits its removal, feel free. Either way, I'm not sure it merits a dubious tag, as the information isn't dubious. That is what the Philippines is in Spanish. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "That is what the Philippines is in Spanish." If it's a reference to the naming in 1543 after Philip II of Spain, I'm aware of that. It's clear that Spanish is not currently an official language or a significant minority language in the Philippines, I think. I've looked in this talk page and its archives for for the previous discussion and agreement that it should be mentioned here because of its historical significance and I'm still hoping to see a link to it (perhaps my search missed the discussion, perhaps the discussion took place elsewhere, ...). In any case, if it is included as an exception to the criteria for inclusion stated in the article, the fact that it is being included as an exception to the stated inclusion criteria should be indicated and the reason for the exception noted in the article. Without such an indication and note, readers of the article will presume that it meets the stated inclusion criteria. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that dubious means the information may be inaccurate, which in this case it isn't. I don't think a note is needed, as the use of languages isn't explained in the article, so within the article there is no inconsistency. The fact it's named after a King of Spain is another reason to keep it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wtmitchell, there isn't "one link" because the subject of languages has been raised several times over the last year or so when a new anon IP shows up to wreak his/her personal havoc on the list or when a new editor here (like yourself) comes in to improve the article and doesn't know the history of discussion. But "one link" isn't important, anyway.  If you look at Archive 7, for example, you'll see several discussions on language and see that those of us who have been here awhile have a strong feeling that each state in the list needs to be treated individually under the broad criteria of 1) official or majority language, 2) "major" minority languages, and 3) languages of historical interest.  Spanish certainly fits within the last category.  We're not here to be stingy with bandwidth as long as the language lists remain reasonable for each country.  We're not going to list Hmong and Cheyenne for the U.S., but listing Spanish for the Philippines makes sense from a historical perspective.  --Taivo (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, and noting that the Philippine constitution designates "Regional languages" as "auxiliary official languages", it seems to me that Bicol, Cebuano, Chavacano (Spanish creole), Hiligaynon, Ilocano, Kapampangan, Kinaray-a, Maguindanao, Maranao, Pangasinan, Tagalog, Tausug, and Waray-Waray (the languages listed as "Regional languages" in the infobox of the Languages of the Philippines article) should be listed under Philippines as well, and listed ahead of Spanish (about which, see Languages of the Philippines). Each of those regional languages, besides arguably being an auxiliary official language, is today of greater significance than Spanish is in the Philippines as a major minority language, and most or all of those probably have more historical significance in the Philippines than Spanish.  Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable translation. Personally, I don't know Pangasinan or Waray-Waray, nor do I know anyone who does.  --Taivo (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While not knowing any of the languages myself, I know people who do, and actually Philippines is Pilipinas in a lot of them, not just Tagalog. Right now I have gotten an explicit statement for Visayan from someone I know; it's the same as the Tagalog one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Sources aren't difficult to find. See e.g.,
 * That Languages of the Philippines article, of course, is not a reliable source. I was just pointing out seeming contradictions between this article and that one, in light of what the Philippine constitution specifies regarding languages. My suggestion that the list of regional languages above which I imported from the that other article be included here was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I do think, though, that a mention that regional languages are designated as auxiliary official languages would be appropriate and useful.
 * Regarding Spanish in the Philippines, I would point out that wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that "anything challenged or likely to be challenged, ..., be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." The inclusion of Spanish in this list as an official or significant language of the Philippines has been challenged here by me and earlier by at least one other editor. I'm placing a Citation needed tag to indicate that a supporting source is required if that mention is to stand.
 * Except as it relates to the Philippines, this article doesn't fall within my interest areas. I don't recall how I came to look at it, but I imagine that it was as a side-issue of something else I was doing. and, as you've pointed out, I'm not a long-time editor of of this article.
 * I don't think that there's much point in my continuing this discussion, so I'm de-watchlisting this article. I'll leave it to other editors here to thrash out a consensus view (which, once thrashed out, can be referred to with a wikilink). Please give me a shout on my talk page if I can be useful in further discussion here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A citation needed tag is relevant if the translation is in question, not for the presence or not of the form. --Taivo (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So, a "dubious" or a "clarification needed" template would be more appropriate? Alinor (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, neither of these is appropriate. These tags are for the accuracy of the information presented, that is, in this case, the translation itself.  If someone questions the accuracy of the translation in some way, then one of these tags is appropriate.  The question in this case is whether the translation should be there at all and none of these tags addresses that.  A tag in this place is just WP:POINTy.  Tags are to alert the reader that the information itself may be dubious or unverified.  In this case, the information is accurate and no one questions the accuracy of the information.  The whole issue of whether the Spanish should be there or not is not something that is useful for the reader, but only of interest to the editors who take an interest on the Talk Page.  Therefore no tag is appropriate.  We're discussing it here on the Talk Page only.  And the consensus on the Talk Page over the last year has been that the Spanish at the Philippines is of historical interest and the whole debate has always centered not around whether it is of interest to the user, but whether it follows some set of fixed rules for inclusion.  The consensus has always come to the conclusion that there are no fixed rules for inclusion, but only guidelines and that no set of fixed rules could ever accurately or usefully cover all 193+ states that each have a separate and individual spin on what languages are useful or interesting for the user of Wikipedia.  Spanish is a historically interesting addition to the Philippines.  I've never understood why some editors care about deleting it so much.  --Taivo (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent job explaining the tag situation Taivo, well articulated. On the subject of languages, Nightw just edited a bunch of them out in order to stick to his UN source, the one he brought up before. Do you think we should add those other languages back in? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So, a "dubious" or a "clarification needed" template would be more appropriate? Alinor (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, neither of these is appropriate. These tags are for the accuracy of the information presented, that is, in this case, the translation itself.  If someone questions the accuracy of the translation in some way, then one of these tags is appropriate.  The question in this case is whether the translation should be there at all and none of these tags addresses that.  A tag in this place is just WP:POINTy.  Tags are to alert the reader that the information itself may be dubious or unverified.  In this case, the information is accurate and no one questions the accuracy of the information.  The whole issue of whether the Spanish should be there or not is not something that is useful for the reader, but only of interest to the editors who take an interest on the Talk Page.  Therefore no tag is appropriate.  We're discussing it here on the Talk Page only.  And the consensus on the Talk Page over the last year has been that the Spanish at the Philippines is of historical interest and the whole debate has always centered not around whether it is of interest to the user, but whether it follows some set of fixed rules for inclusion.  The consensus has always come to the conclusion that there are no fixed rules for inclusion, but only guidelines and that no set of fixed rules could ever accurately or usefully cover all 193+ states that each have a separate and individual spin on what languages are useful or interesting for the user of Wikipedia.  Spanish is a historically interesting addition to the Philippines.  I've never understood why some editors care about deleting it so much.  --Taivo (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent job explaining the tag situation Taivo, well articulated. On the subject of languages, Nightw just edited a bunch of them out in order to stick to his UN source, the one he brought up before. Do you think we should add those other languages back in? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I re-edited the header on the table and the footnote to reflect our general consensus on what languages to include. I've never really been a big fan of strictly following X or Y source or Z rule in this list, but being flexible and treating each country as it comes along. I don't strongly feel one way or another about the languages that Nightw eliminated (I actually didn't notice the deletions when he did them). There are a couple of countries that I follow closely to keep certain languages there. The question is always accuracy of the translation. Nightw was using a source where he was very confident that the translations were absolutely accurate and so if the translation didn't occur in that source... --Taivo (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I can assure you that in the Visayan language (or Visayan language group, depending on whether you consider Visayan languages languages or dialects) that the translation for "Philippines" is "Pilipinas".
 * On the other hand, spent 5 minutes googling couldn't find anything specific which states that translation, I'm sure someone with better googling skills could though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In the regional languages, it is as follows:
 * Cebuano: Republika sa Pilipinas
 * Hiligaynon: Republika sang Pilipinas
 * Kinaray-a: Republika kang Pilipinas
 * Tagalog: Republika ng Pilipinas
 * Tausug: Republika ng Pilipinas
 * Waray-Waray: Republika han Pilipinas
 * Bicol: Republika kan Filipinas
 * Chavacano: Republica de Filipinas
 * Ilokano: Republika ti Filipinas
 * Kapampangan: Republika ning Filipinas
 * Pangasinan: Republika na Filipinas
 * As long as you can verify additions with sources, I won't object to their being included. But your addition was unsourced and (as you'll note from the above) incorrect. Night w (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In my defense, sa and ng have become synonyms in colloquial usage, due to the two languages being in such close proximity! But noted, add with sources. Maybe that should be a policy. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Language Policy (again, sorry!)
The additions by someone who by their edits seems to be some sort of Bosnian nationalist spurred me to ask about what we add under languages. Sometimes languages, such as in this case the Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian, languages, are simply one language, divided by politics and not linguistics (Serbocroatian). Another case is Hindi and Urdu (Hindustani). When we list them, how should we do it? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In the case of Hindi and Urdu, and before that Serbian and Croatian, the two use a different script and so it would be inappropriate to unite the two. Bosnian (as does Croatian) uses the Latin script, so they are technically the same.  Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian are still one language from a linguistic viewpoint, but they are being separated for sociolinguistic reasons.  It's hard to say at what point we want to separate them here.  Under "Croatia" we definitely want to label the language "Croatian" and under Serbia "Serbian".  The addition of the Arabic script by the Bosnian nationalist was definitely wrong since Bosnian isn't written with the Arabic script.  But unless we actually start seeing Bosnian official documents written in both "Bosnian" and "Croatian" and distinguished in some way from each other (which, at the present time, isn't really possible), then one form here is appropriate.  --Taivo (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In bosnia Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are all recognized as different names of the same language, probably due to the ethnic mixture there, so there probably won't be a distinction anytime soon. I understand the different scripts point, just worried about accuracy. Maybe we should add that to a discussion faq at the top of the talk page? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with User:Taivo's comment. It is factually sound. Outback the koala (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay should be specifically mentioned in this article.
The Wikipedia entry for Guantanamo Bay states the following:

"The United States assumed territorial control over the southern portion of Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, which granted it a perpetual lease of the area.[1] The United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control, maintains "de facto" sovereignty over this territory, while Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory. The current government of Cuba regards the U.S. presence in Guantánamo Bay as illegal and insists the Cuban-American Treaty was obtained by threat of force in violation of international law.[2]"

The entry describing the United States' inhabited and uninhabited possessions, territories, and commonwealths should include mention of Guantanamo Bay as well, perhaps with the qualification that sovereignty exercised is at the very least de facto. Whether U.S. sovereignty is also de jure is not a settled question among the nations of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.88.71 (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Guantanamo bay is de jure part of Cuba there is no doubt about that. Including the extraterritorial areas for every country would probably make extants too long. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are military bases scattered all over the world run by the U.S. and the U.K. and other countries where they exercise de facto sovereignty, but stand behind the host government's de jure sovereignty. We don't need to mention them because the de jure sovereignty is never in doubt (and this includes Guantanamo).  Indeed, they function almost like "super embassies", which are also technically the territory of the ambassador's country and not the host country.  --Taivo (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sovereignty of the Several United States
In light of the provisions of the Articles of Confederation — "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." — and the United States Constitution — "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." — is there any defensible reason for excluding the several United States (e.g., Delaware, Hawaii...) from the list of sovereign states that would not also disqualify European Union and United Nations member states? Nicholsonadam (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They don't fit the list's inclusion criteria.  Night w   23:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Article of Confederation are moot. Sovereignty is a term of art in US law extending from citizens through the states to the federal government.  States of the US are sovereign, but are not 'sovereign states' as meant here, and neither are US native tribes. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

In a federation, such as the US, the states are considered to be sovereign in their internal affairs, except in matters reserved for the federal government. External sovereignty (the ability to represent oneself as a state in the international arena) is usually reserved for the federal government. Ladril (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

France - let's trim down seven flags
The ovearseas collectivities of France and New Caledonia, as I understand it, are integral parts of the French Republic. Thus, there is no reason for each of them to be listed with a separate flag. A source of confusion may be that the French term "d'outremer" is being conflated with the British "overseas". But whereas the designation "overseas" in the British usage means a British colony not part of the UK, in French it simply means a territory governed by a special statute, that is not a department of France but is also not external to the Republic. Ladril (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Specific proposal emanating from the above: eliminate the list of collectivities and the flags and replace with a link to an article on Overseas departments and territories of France. Ladril (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for the overseas collectivities being integral parts of France? Because my understanding has been that the overseas departments are integral and the overseas collectivities are not. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I know they are not integral parts of the republic. They run their own affairs, and places like New Caledonia are potentially vying for independence. The republic (I just read over all the wiki articles) seems to just be metropolitan+overseas regions/departments. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference between overseas departments and overseas collectivities is that overseas departments have the same rights and obligations as the metropolitan departments. The collectivities, on the other hand, each have a statute defining their form of government and their specific rights. Each of them, including New Caledonia, sends representatives to the main National Assembly of the country. They are not external to the French republic. More to follow. Ladril (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the fact that they send representatives doesn't necessarily imply that they're integral parts of France. Greenland and the Faroe Islands send delegates to the Danish Folketing, for instance. Orange Tuesday (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Greenland and the Faroes are integral part of Denmark. Ladril (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * British overseas territories send representatives to parliament don't they? I seem to remember reading somewhere that the representative of Gibraltar made a big fuss every now and then. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, no. This [] news item seems to corroborate it. Ladril (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, so Greenland isn't a dependency either? I think we're defining the term out of existence. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember the world is undergoing a decolonization process since World War 2. At this point in history there are rather few colonies remaining (or too many, depending on your optic). Ladril (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that, but I'm not sure how useful any definition which doesn't count Greenland among them could be. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note to complement the above, Denmark used to report to the UN on Greenland's decolonization status until 1954. Since then there have been several political developments that have changed its status in relation to Denmark. []
 * Right no, I understand that, but does the fact that it has been decolonized mean it's no longer a dependency? Puerto Rico is no longer considered non-self-governing by the UN but it's still a dependency. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is more complicated than that. Frankly, I don't understand your definition of "dependency" at all. For the record, typing "dependency" in Wikipedia's search box leads to the dependent territory page (after a disambiguation). So perhaps we need to discuss the term more carefully and reach a consensus on its meaning. What I don't want to do is to end up listing Ceuta, Melilla, Puerto Rico, the Cook Islands, Greenland, Corsica, Sicily and Kaliningrad as if they were all the same. That helps nobody. Ladril (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Even an area not part of the integral country can be self-governing, hence its removal from the UN list. I don't think anyone counts Greenland as an integral part of Denmark (except maybe some very right wing danes). They certainly don't. Same for the French territories I assume. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There goes the political-legal argumentation again. Please guys. The point here is not to argue as if this were a court of law or a political debate. The objective here is to find the truth. Let's start from that. Ladril (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Both Faroes and Greenland are part of the kingdom as defined by many documents. Ladril (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * [] Here the government of Denmark itself says it. Ladril (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay let's try this from a different direction. In your opinion, which territories are dependent territories? Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Will be accused of incompleteness, but here it goes. The list refers to those that are, as defined by the legal code of the specific countries in question, not part of the administering power, but belong to it as colonial possessions:
 * - Australia: its external territories (Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Christmas Islands).
 * - New Zealand: Tokelau. Chatham an is integral part of New Zealand proper.
 * - United Kingdom: British Overseas Territories and Sovereign Base Areas.
 * - Personal union with the British Crown: Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
 * - United States: American Samoa, Guam and US Virgin Islands. Sitting on the fence about Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas.
 * All of them Anglophone countries, I know. Ladril (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that Australians external territories are dependencies, but that aside!
 * How are those situations different from the French ones? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You make an interesting point about Australia. According to [] interpretations range all over as to whether the external territories form part of Australia proper or not. As for the French ones, I already offered my opinion: that they are not legally colonies but integral parts of France, just as Alaska and Hawaii are US states, or Azores and Madeira part of Portugal. Ladril (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a source saying that? The equivalent of Alaska/Hawaii and Azores/Madeira would be the regions of France, they are first level administrative divisions. The USA does not consider them equivalent, see this list, where French territories listed as areas of special sovereignty (french overseas departments too but with a clarification that they are in the list only for convenience) along with US territories. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Europa World Book - a very serious source - has entries for each of the French collectivities, stating specifically that they are integral parts of France. I haven't been able to obtain an online copy, which while not a requirement, is something I would like to show to you guys. As in the case of CK and Niue, I suppose we'll have to bide our time until more evidence can be found. Ladril (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Counter-question: do we have sources stating such-and-such collectivities are NOT part of France? Ladril (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, this source [] says that New Caledonia has "shared sovereignty" between France and New Caledonia itself. The territory is in a transitional stage to independence, but still formally part of the French Republic. Ladril (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the US state dept list, it mentions the Australian External Territories as dependencies which, according to yourself, is debatable. 189.180.61.40 (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Ladril (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the IP you Ladril?
 * The source you provided says that it is trying to find its place within the French Republic, not that it is part of the French Republic. As for saying they are not part of France, the US source is one example. And believe me, I've trawled wikipedia in the past about this (being interested in it) and although I know we can't use Wikipedia as a source, what sources wikipedia articles say does seem to indicate to me they are nonintegral. Places like the BBC list them separately too. As for the Australian Territories, I've heard both sides of the debate. As your source says, their status is questionable, so i don't know. My POV is that they are part of Australia proper (but for obvious reasons I can't use that can I :p ) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As for australia, the external territories are not considered to be australia for immigration law but the inhabitants of cocos and christmas can vote in one of the northern territories election districts. The situation in norfolk is much more complex, but in short its citizens can pick one of several election districts to vote in australian national elections. For the US unincorporated territories are not integral parts of the United States while incorporated territories are. The status of Commonwealth for Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas are simply a type of unincorporated territory. Legally under federal law the united states government can rule any unincorporated territory directly simply by recinding its organic act, as only those unincorporated territories with an organic act are self governing. There is tons of case law surrounding this issue, most of which are known as the Insular Cases.XavierGreen (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. In practice the commonwealths of the US function pretty much as possessions. However, the formal arrangement is supposed to mean something that is neither a colony, a US state, or an independent state. Ladril (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the Term commonwealth actually has no real legal meaning. There are only two types of territories in united states law, unincorporated territories (colonies, dependecies, what have you) and incorporated territories (integral parts of the united states). The autonomy given to puerto rico and the northern mariana islands is given to those areas by an Organic Act, the same process gives Guam and the United States Virgin Islands their autonomy as well. Both unincorporated and incorporated territories can be given organic acts in order to formally organize their governments. Although to my knowledge it has never happened in actuality, the Supreme court has ruled that the united states can recind at will the organic act of any territory including puerto rico. The term commonwealth is merely a portion of the legal name of these entities. For example there is a similar situation with the individual states, four of them are actually legally commonwealths by name, however that status has no legal ramafications or differentiation from any of the other 46 states.XavierGreen (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm neither a lawyer nor Unitedstatesian, so the legalese is largely lost on me. However, I think there is at least some grounds for saying that (again, in formal and maybe unwritten terms) an unincorporated commonwealth has a higher degree of self-government than a territory. You might recall that not long ago there was a movement in Guam in favour of it becoming a commonwealth like the Northern Marianas (background [] []. Note that this proposal did not consider any of the options the UN allows as decolonization (integration with the US, independence or associated statehood). Ladril (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, if I haven't got this right, but I think that some issues are mixed here:
 * whether a territory is "mainland itself"/"fully mainland integrated"(like Easter Islands, Yemen Socortia, Fr.Guiana, Reunion, etc.) and "other fully integrated" (mostly uninhabitted territories: Jan Mayen, Prince Edward Islands, Clipperton, etc.); are there such lists on wikipedia or a single list combining these?/"autonomous" (includes even the capital regions of many states)/"self-governing"(dependency article)/"non-self-governing"(dependencey article, UN list)
 * A side note - it would be good if we had a "spectrum template" - with all intermediate status types from sovereign state-to-non-self-governing. Such template could be combined with "administrative divisions orders" (first, second, third, etc.) and the federal types template that is already existing (from federation to federal monarchy, and including devolution/home rule/personal union/some of the above/etc.) - Template:Autonomous types of first-tier administration
 * what of the above types should be included in the extant and how: not mentioned/mentioned in a sentence/listed with points and flags-if-applicable
 * what of the "listed with points" entries should have flags
 * what flag to use - official mainland flag/official special-territory flag/unofficial special-territory flag

If we look at the current France entry - "integrated" territories (both inhabited and uninhabited) are mentioned in a sentence (Fr.Guiana, Reunion, Clipperton, etc.) and dependencies are listed with points. All of the dependencies have flags, but of different categories: official special-territory flag (Fr.Polynesia, New Caledonia), official mainland flag (St.Martin), unofficial flags (Mayotte, St.Barthélemy, St.Pierre and Miquelon, Wallis and Futuna). Here TAAF is an odd case - the flag shown is the "administrator flag", but the official flag of the territory is the mainland flag.

My proposal is to leave all as it is (eg. not to remove territories, etc.), but to show only official special-territory flags (as official mainland flag is already shown in the main part of the entry). In the case of France - leave only the Fr.Polynesia and New Caledonia flags and remove the rest.

A side note - some of the entries have french translations; some don't have translations, but foreign claims notes; some have no note... should we put french translations on all of the entries and move claims to a sentence below - or alternatively - remove translation notes and leave only the claims notes? Alinor (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The fully integrated parts are the regions. I'm not sure if Clipperton belongs in the text, I always thought it was not integral. I actually agree that flags that aren't official should be removed (even though I absolutely love flags), using the noflag template I added to the Australian entry earlier. I do think that everything that is currently in bullet points should stay in bullets though. I think that claims should be moved to text below, which already has some claims in it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Clipperton is something like the Palymara atoll near Hawaii - not part of any US State, but directly "reporting" to the US Government. Alinor (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The US government officially regards Palmyra as part of the USA. It was part of the territory of Hawaii I believe, before they separated it. I'm not sure that France regards Clipperton in the same way. I think it reports directly to the French government for convenience, there's not really a large population there! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the CIA world factbook do a good job of telling us what are dependent territories and what are considered integral parts of the metropole? For France, it has no entries for the overseas departments, but has entries for the other overseas territories and collectivities. This, so far as I can tell, is the practice in most reliable sources. john k (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I see it, no. It's not always a source that provides a worldwide view of the subject, which is something the encyclopedia claims to strive for. Ladril (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The CIA is always reliable, except for when it's not!
 * Although a source that should definitely be considered, I've seen editors counter it with other sources, that were quite frankly better. But in terms of sources, most lists found on a quick google search bring up the territories separately. For geographical or political reasons I'd have to look closer than I already did, but places like the US state department website above do show a difference. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, why don't we use an accepted international standard like the ISO 3166-1? Rather than trying to decide what is a dependent territory and what isn't or what's an integral territory and what isn't we could instead just list any territory which has an officially assigned code. It basically wouldn't change the page that much. The only things we conventionally have considered dependencies but don't have codes are the United States Minor Outlying Islands (which all share a single code), the various Antarctic territories (which we can list on the grounds of them being disputed territories or whatever), Clipperton Island, Ashmore and Cartier, and the Coral Sea Islands. And the entities we don't consider dependencies but do have codes are Hong Kong and Macao (already on the page for some reason), Åland (ditto), and the French overseas regions. Anything we'd be adding was already there in paragraph form and everything we're taking away we could just move into paragraph form. Nice, simple, no fuss. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem with that is that ISO isn't exactly perfectly relevant to this. As you yourself noted in your paragraph, even using it, we ourselves have to make edits and changes to it, such as with the French overseas departments. Hong Kong, Macau, and Aland are included for political notability. I'd like to include svalbard in the same vein myself, but it is in a paragraph now, and I guess I can live with that. Looking at ISO though, Svalbard has its own code with Jan Mayen. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm actually saying we don't have to change it for our purposes. Rather than trawling through constitutions, trying to decide what exactly a dependent territory is and figuring which territories are integral etc., we could just flat out make the policy that we give everything that has an ISO 3166-1 code its own bullet point and leave all the other notable territories in paragraph form. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with giving Reunion its own bullet point. Placing Jan Mayen and Svalbard as a bullet point would be silly, as would United States Minor Outlying Islands. So I disagree with making the ISO list the basis of a flat out policy :) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also disagree on the same grounds as chipmunkdavis.XavierGreen (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A special bullet for Svalbard wouldn't be out of the question. It's a territory of shared sovereignty between several states. Ladril (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Svalbard is not a shared sovereignty, but Norway full sovereignty with "strings attached" (eg. like "non discrimination" treatment for some foreign citizens and companies). Alinor (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * About the ISO - I don't think it is usefull here - there are too much nuances for "just use ISO" to work well. Alinor (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But on the topic here - French flags (and flags in general) - could we agree to use only official flags of the special territories? Then we can separately discuss what territories to have points, etc. Alinor (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed that only official flags should be used there, which may or may not include the New Caledonian one, but that can be discussed later if anyone feels it should be. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen the ISO used as a reference here before, and while I believe it can be good as a starting point, I don't think it will be useful every time. For example, it describes Taiwan as a single "province of China", while the Republic of China divides its territory into two provinces, last I heard. Ladril (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that only official flags should be used, as for Svalbard Norway has soveriegnty but the Signatories of the Svalbard treaty each have certain concession rights over the whole of the territory. It might be useful to list under each of the signatories that they hold concession rights in svalbard, but if we do we would be opening up a whole can of worms because we would have to list all the other concessions in existance (some of which are absurdly minor and small, like a few square feet of a graveyard ect). We already list some concessions though such as the Holy See's properties outside of the Vatican and Guantanamo Bay.XavierGreen (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I recommend removing those concessions. I thought the talk page agreement was not to list guantanamo. The Holy See's property may be more notable than others though, due to their being possessions of the "Holy See", rather than "Vatican City". Svalbard's signatories do not have extraterritoriality in a small area of Svalbard, rather they have permission to conduct activities within svalbard. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Guantanamo Bay is a simple lease so, unlike the British bases on Cyprus, it has no place in the article. As for Svalbard, it's not a simple matter of foreign countries having "permission" to conduct activities there. The territory moved from being terra nullius to be under Norwegian sovereignty due to a treaty conferring it which was signed by several countries. The same Treaty stipulated Norwegian sovereignty and the prerogatives of other countries in Svalbard. Thus, it is at least a special case of sovereignty which cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand. Ladril (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree Svalbard should be there, the question is whether it should be bullet pointed. Obviously a flag is irrelevant here, but it might be worth bullet pointing it anyway, with a bit more information. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong, Macau, and Aland are included for political notability. What does this mean?  Hong Kong and Macau, at least, arguably are politically distinct entities from mainland China.  They get their own FIFA membership, for example, and membership in various other international organizations, iirc.  And the form of government is pretty different too, no?  john k (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly that means exactly what you point in your post - they are politically different enough from their metropole that there are "notable" and put with a bullet. This is in contrast to other "autonomies" that are without a bullet (or not noted at all in the list). And these three are mentioned, because they are not "dependencies". Alinor (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I ask again, what's a "dependency"? Ladril (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From the Dependent territory page: "A dependent territory, dependent area or dependency is a territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a State, and remains politically outside of the controlling states integral area". Alinor (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Supranational union
Currently of all trade blocs only the EU is listed in the extants. There is a footnote explaining why the EU is different. I think that a link to Supranationalism is appropriate there. Alinor (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a link. Check it out; change it if you meant something else. I don't think it's a big deal.  Night w   15:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I had in mind the footnote linked from every member state extant, but maybe the EU's own entry, where you added it, is also a good place. Alinor (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Change if you want.  Night w   02:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Governments in exile
The extant column description states that "information is included on separatist governments in exile". I think it's better to change that to "information is included on governments in exile". Anyway, currently only SADR extant includes remark about "exile". We should choose:
 * 1) include GiE notes on all relevant cases, including of the separatist/alternative type (see GiE tables)
 * 2) include GiE notes on all cases without separatist
 * 3) include GiE notes on all cases without alternative
 * 4) include GiE notes on all cases without both separatist/alternative - include only: Burma, Belarus, (not Ethiopia - see GiE talk), Iran, Laos, PRC (RoC, Tibet), RoC, Georgia (Abkhazia, South Ossetia), SADR, Palestine
 * 5) include GiE notes only in case of "partial" exile - RoC, SADR, Palestine (maybe this is the best option - I haven't seen any sources confirming official recognition of the rest of the GiEs, if we exclude Abkhazia/South Ossetia Georgian administrations, that are covered in the Georgia extant regardless of the GiE issue.)
 * 6) do not include any GiE notes Alinor (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to have a discussion on the standards we are to apply. Where is the definition of "Government in exile" taken from, for example? Ladril (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we should discuss GiE definition here - let's use for that the Talk:Government in exile page instead.
 * What I am proposing above concerns only what types of GiEs to list in the extants here, but the types themselves are described on the GiE page. Alinor (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving the Koreas
Why? The Korean states are listed under K, whereas we do not list the following: Why have an exception for the Koreas? I am moving them to what most users would probably expect: "North Korea" and "South Korea". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Africa, South
 * Cyprus, Northern
 * Ossetia, South
 * Timor, East
 * Because Koreas are two states within one country. The same goes for Chinas and Cypruses (Cypri?), but they are kept in different lists, so there is no point in making alphabetical neighbors. Hellerick (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's because "North" and "South" are not part of their names. We list South Ossetia under "S" because the name is "South Ossetia" (cf. Republic of South Ossetia ). Northern Cyprus is "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ". In Korea, according to both official positions, there's no "North" and "South"; it's simply "Korea" (hence, "Republic of Korea", "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"). And it wasn't an exception in the first place (cf. "Congo, Republic of", "Micronesia, Federated States of").  Night w   07:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Night w. is most correct. I wholly concur. Outback the koala (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This leaves the question of East Timor as an interesting case. Official name is Timor Leste (which does not just translate to East Timor, as that was Timor Timur.), so we should put that under T? L.tak (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Night w. About Timor-Leste see here. Alinor (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: I am not advocating for Timor-Leste, although I can imagine that could be concluded from my message. ( I think Timor-Leste is the better term to use in media, but until the English media start doing that, Wikipedia should follow the present common name, which is East Timor. Just when following the reasoning of Black night, then it would be possible to arrive at "Timor, East" as "East" is not part of the official name. Not a big deal, but since we're discussing Koreas, it would be good to get the guideline clear... L.tak (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Leste derives from the Portuguese word for East (at least I presume it does, since it's very similar to the French l'est) so the official name does translate to East Timor. (This ignores of course the fact that Timor derives from the Indonesian word Timur, which also means east, so a literal translation would yield the unusual name East East.)  TDL (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, I somehow was convinced that Leste meant exalted or great, but could not find any sources for that; so I agree to leave things as they are. That said, I am not convinced that Leste would translate to East in the local language or that Timor Timur would have sounded like East East despite that that's the etymology (Timor Barat, "East West" is still used for West Timor in Indonesian). There was a clear move from Timor Timur/East Timor to Timor-Leste upon UN membership, and I guess that signifies a real name change (not merely a language choice). If I only had a source... L.tak (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Based on Wiktionary and some playing about with Google translate, this appears to be right: "Timor leste" would appear to be "eastern Timor" in Portuguese.


 * But I'd make the point that East Timor does not claim to be the government of the entire island of Timor, meaning that the situation is different from Korea. The point of listing the Koreas under "K" is that both governments claim to be the government of all of Korea, something that doesn't apply anywhere else except in the Chinas (which should be listed under "C" in their respective lists). Pfainuk talk 20:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Bouvet Island
This page currently lists it as an integral part of norway, but according to all the sources ive seen and elsewear on wikipedia it is labled a possestion/dependent territory in the same manner as peter island and the antarctic claim.XavierGreen (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I've only ever heard of it as a dependency. (Same with Clipperton for France actually, but separate issue) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Peter I and Bouvet status is the same. The only difference is that Peter I status is "frozen". Jan Mayen and Svalbard are different/integral parts. I think Bouvet, Peter I, Queen Maud Land should be bulleted (as they are dependencies), Svalbard should be bulleted (as with international treaty), Jan Mayen should be left as it is (in-line text note) (as it is integral part).
 * I also notice that there is no "common rule" about dependencies/autonomies formating. In some cases they have bullets, in other cases they are in-line text. I propose that Dependent territory and List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement have bullets and the rest of List of autonomous areas by country currently mentioned to be in-line. I think that some of the List of autonomous areas by country are not mentioned currently - as they are "autonomous" only in name, but don't generally differ from the rest of the state in question administrative divisions. If this is the case maybe some general remark should be added in the lead/bottom (if not already present) - so that this is clear. Alinor (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alinor that dependencies and special entities should be bulleted, as well as places like Aruba, which are not part of their commonly associated country per se, but still are not technically dependencies.
 * I don't think Jan Mayen should even be mentioned in the extant. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that Aruba/Curcao/Sint Marteen should be bulleted - the are already listed in Dependent territory, so I didn't mention them specifically. I also agree that we can argue if about their status is "dependency" (as in the Kingdom of Netherlands the 4 countries: Aruba, Netherlands, etc. are "equal"?), but this mostly depends on the definition of dependency - it seems that they "meet" the currently adopted definition on the dependent territory article.
 * Jan Mayen - I also agree - Ecuador, Brazil and other similar cases have such "detached territories" and they aren't listed. In fact, the only other similar territory listed currently in the article that I find are the Easter islands of Chile, but they have special autonomous regime - in contrast to Jan Mayen. So, OK, I agree, but I think a hidden note in the source of the page should be put - explaining why Jan Mayen is left out - otherwise many users will re-add it repeatedly. Alinor (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Andorra - head of state note
Should we add a note in the Andorra extant that it doesn't have separate head of state/has as head-of-state the president of France (another state) and the bishop of Spainish region. We mention the similar no-separate-head-of-state arrangement for the commonwealth realms. Alinor (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the notability of Andorra is that the people of Andorra have no control over their heads of state, both of whom are not Andorran. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because that would obviously be incorrect. The President of France is not the head of state of Andorra, the Prince of Andorra is. And no, the Commonwealth realms do not share a single head of state as you say; the Queen of the United Kingdom is not the head of state of Australia, the Queen of Australia is. Separate offices, and separate crowns.  Night w   14:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't say that Commonwealth realm share head of state, but that these states do not have their own head of state. I mean that the person/institution holding the title of their sovereign is not solely their sovereign, but also holds the title sovereign of other states. Anyway, the point is - we mention these, so even if we consider them "completely separate and unrelated", and we still mention them, so we should surely mention Andorra too.
 * So, for Andorra - the "prince of andorra" is the title, but it is held by two outside institutions - French President and Bishop of Urgell, and even, one of these institutions is also head of another state. As we mention commonwealth realms I think Andorra should be mentioned too.
 * Also, it is another question if this should be somehow mentioned in the France and Holy See extants (as parts of these structures are the co-princes of Andorra). Alinor (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this should be mentioned, just like other users feel like adding a lot of caveats to the CK and Niue entries. The situation of Andorra is quite different from France. Maybe we should colour it differently? Ladril (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ladril. There's a big difference between states like France and a state like Andorra.  I will strongly oppose any list which doesn't clearly show the difference between France and Andorra at all times.  We need a separate colour for all entries who's head of state is also the head of state of another country, even if it's a separate crown.   TDL (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Night w. And yes! the colours, the colours... Outback the koala (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, just to make it clear - I am not a supporter of "colors everywhere anytime". I just noticed that we mention "specialty head of state" cases - the Commonwealth realms, that's why I think it is natural that we also mention (in notes) all such "special" cases - and the only other that I see is Andorra. I don't claim that it is less of state, inferior, should be colored or something like that - I only think that its head of state is different - the difference consisting in its "external dimension" - the title is held by person/institution holding also another titles in other states. I think both Commonwealth realms/Andorra co-principality arrangements are notable enough to be mentioned in the notes of entries for the topic (sovereign state). Alinor (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nightw as well. Strongly oppose any changes to Andorra's entry, which has been modified only once since 1230. Ladril (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC) AS for your idea, Alinor, I think it would be much better to implement if every state had a note detailing its form of government. Otherwise I do not see how you could detail this with the current page setup. Same about citizenship - if it's going to be implemented, maybe every state should have a note about nationality/citizenship, and so on. Ladril (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support a quick mention on Andorra similar to the line of the commonwealth realms. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ladril, I proposed adding such note to Andorra, because we have such notes on the commonwealth realms. I explained what the similarity is and I think that is a reason to treat them equally - either Andorra to have a note about its head-of-state co-principality arrangement, or commonwealth realms to not have note about their head-of-state commonwealth realm arrangement. Alinor (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say be bold and add the note you think is fitting to the article. We'll see if it works. Ladril (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC) The editing cycle is you edit, maybe someone else reverts, then hopefully all discuss. Then there's a ten percent chance you'll manage a consensus and proceed with your original edit, and 90 percent you'll realize a bad arrangement is often better than a good fight. No need to discuss every prospective edit to death (though it's nice to tell the collectivity in advance of what you want to do). Ladril (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to the idea of a footnote, just as long as you get the facts right. To state "it doesn't have [a] separate head of state" would clearly be incorrect. The office is held ex officio, which is, by the way, not in any way the same as the situation in the Commonwealth.  Night w   11:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that's why I opened this section instead of going straight ahead with implementation - to see what other think about this. So, check what I added to the article.
 * A quick note - it seems that it is wrong to use the phrase "French president and Spanish bishop" - the diocese is for both part-of-Spain and Andorra - I think that Catholic dioceses are not arranged according to the states, but according to Church-designated territories, that even pre-date many of the states. And anyway, the state of Spain has nothing to do with the bishop - he is subordinated to the Catholic Church, thus to the Rome diocese/Holy See. What I am not sure is if the other functions of the Holy See (i.a. Vatican city) should be considered in this case. Because the president of France is clearly an institution of the state of France. But the Holy See->Urgell subordinature->bishop-of-Urgell-subordinature is not an institution of the state of the Vatican City - on the contrary!
 * So, I think a note in the French extant should be made about the title held by french state institution/head-of-state, but I am not sure if such note will be appropriate for the Vatican City state. If the entry was for the Holy See it would be, but since the entry is only for the Vatican City-"part" of the Holy See - I think it is not. Alinor (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think a note is needed on the extants of France of Vatican City, it doesn't affect them very much. I'm not even sure how much power the two princes have in Andorra itself, predominantly now a ceremonial role I believe (though welcome to be proved wrong). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since la Seu d'Urgell is not foreign to Andorra, it would be incorrect to say so. Since the role is almost entirely ceremonial, it doesn't seem necessary to present further detail in anything more than a footnote. I wouldn't add notes to either France or Vatican City; it would be rather WP:UNDUE to minor details in their sense.  Night w   13:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain as how to describe Andorra. It has 2 heads-of-state, the Co-Princes. Yet, one becomes Co-Prince of Andorra because he/she holds the foreign office-in-question & not the otherway around. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The bishop is not foreign, OK (in the sense that its "home" region includes Andorra plus Spanish-part of Urgell), but he is part of/appointed by foreign structure (subordinated to the foreign Holy See). The French president is also foreign. Anyway, the note can be reworded, but I think only footnote is not enough as it seems that the footnote is about the Andorra UN membership. At least a small short note is needed ("Co-principality"[1]).
 * About ceremonial functions - yes they are mostly ceremonial, but this is so for most head of states (in contrast to US president).
 * About note in Vatican entry - I had doubts about that and you confirm that no note should be put there. But the French note seems no less appropriate than any commonwealth note, especially the UK one - if not even more - after all the it "just happens" that the titles Tuvalu queen and UK queen are held by the same person, but for Andorra was founded with foreign co-prince (Count of Foix) and it is written in its foundation documents (after amendments during the years) that Foix/France ruler is its co-prince. So the bond is much more explicit. Alinor (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't impact on France's sovereignty. We don't mention the Compact of Free Association in the U.S. notes. I re-added your brief note to Andorra, for lack of better phrasing.  Night w   03:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I improved the note, and took it straight from the Andorra page. I don't think it's too wordy, but feel free to alter it. I really don't think there is need for a note at all, this has nothing to do with Andorran sovereignty, in the jeopardizing sense. Outback the koala (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK with the new note (if others don't consider it too long) - but only this "Spain" at the end seems too much IMHO - Spain has nothing to do with that - it just happens that the "administering center" of the catholic diocese, of which Andorra is part, is located in territory currently part of the state of Spain. I propose to replace that part of the note with "... and the bishop of Urgell diocese" or with "... and the catholic bishop of Urgell". Alinor (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure that fine with me. I just removed "Spain", I'm sure the reader will know that a bishop is a religious designation, and if they don't they can click the wplink and find out something new. Outback the koala (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of criteria
Recent discussions regarding proposed changes to the article's sorting and inclusion criteria have been moved to a separate subpage. This has been done in order to leave this main talk page open to general discussion on other issues. Discussion is now taking place at Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria; please rejoin the debate there. Cheers!  Night w   05:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A compromise appears to be very very close on this matter that will fundamentally change the layout of this list and also reposition several nations. I suggest anyone that wishes to give their opinion on this matter that has not been following the debate on the link above should take a look at the latest proposal there (go right to the bottom) and give feedback or objections. As the priest says at a wedding: Speak Now Or Forever Hold Your Peace. Whilst consensus can always change, once it has been agreed and implemented unless there are serious problems or new information becomes available the newly agreed setup will be very hard to change. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The debate on coloring stalled. Please consider if we should proceed with implementation. Alinor (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems a consensus is reached to:


 * 1) Implement Sandbox2 without CI/Niue - e.g. changes to status quo: adding new (3rd) section (UN members) and sectional sorting criteria improvement, A-Z sortability (allowing for inclusion criteria/neutrality non-default view), adding coloring and coloring sorting criteria
 * 2) *putting a temporary footnote after the "Vienna formula" link in the sorting criteria section with something like "Besides the listed 194 entities member states of some Vienna formula organizations are also the Cook Islands and Niue, currently listed in the New Zealand entry." - and then, inside the NZ entry, to add to the CI/Niue notes the list of organizations that they are members of such as "Cook Islands, member of FAO, etc."
 * 3) continue discussion of proposals for CI/Niue coloring and try to resolve it within a week. Alinor (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Please notify us know when the proposal is finished and ready.  Night w   15:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ? It is ready, that's why I wrote the note above. I think nobody objects to the points above, so the implementation can start right now (starting with Sandbox2, adding the missing entries by copy-paste from the current article, removing CI/Niue, adding the missing external links/etc. sections by copy-paste from the current article) - I will do this myself, when I can, if somebody else isn't faster. Alinor (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so confirming that you're submitting the proposal for a vote as it is now? If so, I will notify the editors involved in the discussions.  Night w   17:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Will voting for the proposed changes take place on this page or another subpage? Outback the koala (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We can do it on Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria. Once Alinor confirms that this is what he wants to submit, I'll set up a thread and send around a message.  Night w   05:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's see what others think. This is a two-step agreement - to implement the non-controversial parts (almost all) first and to give us 1 week to further discuss the last controversial point. Alinor (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are those non-controversial parts you have in mind all in the sandbox and ready to go? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alinor, can please you set up a new thread under Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria, and write a brief summary of what you're proposal entails?  Night w   06:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Alinor (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Netherlands extant
Currently it has text such as "previosly the Netherlands was this-and-that, but currently ..." - in this particular article we should list only "current"/"claimed" things, not what it was before - past arrangement info should be moved to "History of ..." articles, historical sections in the dependencies/autonomies/etc. lists (1, 2, 3), etc. Alinor (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles only occurred 4 days ago, on October 10th at midnight. Sure we can relegate it to a historical page, however in the short term I don't think we need to alter it. Maybe after a month of so we can change the entry? Outback the koala (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's a very recent transition. Probably deserves to be on the page at least a year or two. Ladril (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can agree to a year plus. It's quite the change, with lasting implications. Outback the koala (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a big change of status, but if we start "leaving in" historical statuses - we need to have (again) clear rule how we decide who to include and who to exclude.
 * In this particular case we can use the fact, that the transformation of the BES municipalities didn't happen overnight, but only started 4 days ago and will finish in the next 5 years, I think (until the integration - harmonization of laws, etc. - of the BES municipalities in Netherlands-proper is complete). So, we can stress on that in the extant "historical note" - and we will keep the note until the process it describes is finalized (then it gets moved to other article - if not already present). Alinor (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As a footnote it would be good, methinks. Ladril (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

ICRC
I think we should not list the ICRC in the "excluded entities" section. ICRC is an organization registered in Switzerland, not a sovereign entity. It enjoys privileges (rather substantial in Switzerland) and has some responsibilities delegated to it by international treaties, but is this a reason to mention it in an article about sovereign states? Other organizations also have delegated responsibilities and enjoy some privileges/immunities - we don't list the UN for example. I understand that people make parallels between SMOM and ICRC, but there is one difference that matters in our case: SMOM is a sovereign entity, ICRC is not and doesn't claim to be such. SMOM is included as it is sovereign non-state. The EU/federal/dependencies/etc. are included as they are 'almost-sovereign' and 'very-state-like'. ICRC is both non-sovereign and non-state and doesn't claim to be either. I don't think anybody reading at the list of sovereign states would wonder "And where is ICRC?" ... The proper place for "non-including" ICRC is in the sovereignty article (and it is already put there) because ICRC is "almost sovereign" - just as the proper place for "non-including" SMOM is here as it is "sovereign but not state". Alinor (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The ICRC claims to have international personality which is the same thing as soveriegnty, it acts like a soveriegn polity under international law. Its members are free from the restrictions that their citizenship place on them and are treated as a soveriegn body by other states.XavierGreen (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What is this "claim to have international personality"? ICRC is a legal person, just like any NGO, Ltd., GmbH or other private company/organization/association. The important part here is that ICRC is registered in Switzerland, e.g. by definition it can't claim to be "equal to other sovereign entities" - as it is 'part of/subordinated to the law of' such sovereign entity (Switzerland). Yes, it enjoys privileges (different in the different states - depending on local laws) - but other organizations also have such properties (UN, etc.) - as I said above - ICRC is "sovereign-like" (so it is properly mentioned in the sovereignty article as a special non-sovereign organization), but it is not "sovereign state"-like, because it is neither sovereign nor state and not state-like.
 * The ICRC is not an NGO under international law, it acts like and is respected like an equal in international law and even by the Swiss who recognize its special status within Swiss law and giving the ICRC headquarters special rights of immunity (IE the Swiss cannot legally enforce Swiss law within the ICRC headquarters and the like from the ICRC however they may do so to an NGO). Please note that the ICRC is treated seperately from the rest of the Red Cross under international law, while the remaider of the red cross is treated as an ngo the ICRC is treated as a soveriegn international person.XavierGreen (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean, even SMOM place is on shaky ground - it is only included, because it is sovereign (lacking only the state-part) and because Malta is a state - so there is big potential for confusion, that' why it is justified to put a note "SMOM is not a sovereign state, thus it is not included in the list of these".
 * ICRC in contrast, isn't sovereign, isn't a state, nobody would confuse it for a state. So, there is no need for ICRC exclusion note here. ICRC can only be confused by someone as "sovereign non-state entity", that's why its "ICRC is not a sovereign non-state entity, but has similar properties" note is put in the sovereignty article. Alinor (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a good illustration of the problem with that list. We spend ages determining precise inclusion criteria for the main list and then tag on a list of random entities that don't pass the inclusion criteria.  Sure the ICRC can go on by the listed standards.  Shoot, Microsoft or Exxon-Mobil can go on by the listed standards.  They are noteworthy, they exist, and they don't meet the criteria for the main list.  And that's all that is required to be listed there.  FWIW it's only there because of the EU.  Otherwise it would have been binned long ago.


 * Having a list of entities that don't meet the inclusion criteria, without any meaningful limit on what can be included in that list, is not a good idea. Either we should determine some inclusion criteria for that list, or we should get rid of it. Pfainuk talk 21:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As I see it, the rationale for mentioning the ICRC is because it is commissioned by treaty to act as a protecting power in times of law. In this respect its prerogatives are akin to those of a state. It doesn't mean it's a sovereign entity, though. Ladril (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so some functions of the "world government" are assigned to it - that of worldwide (impartial to the sides of conflict) protecting power in times of war. If it was a UN body ("UN Committee of war time protection") doing that we wouldn't consider including it, would we? The fact that a separate organization has these duties assigned (with the accompanying privileges about immunity, etc.) doesn't change anything IMHO. OK, as it is not an international organization, but a Swiss entity - Switzerland has to go to extreme rules about its immunities inside Switzerland - so that its impartiality is not compromised/considered-to-be-compromised-by-the-other-states (as otherwise it can not perform its duties). That's why these "almost sovereign" classifications appear (additionally conducting humanitarian operations, like SMOM, doesn't help to distinguish them, but I think actions of SMOM/ICRC have nothing to do with their status - many governments conduct "inhumane treatment", "human rights breaches", etc. non-humanitarian activities, but their status doesn't change because of that). But this does not merit its inclusion here - as I said above, even SMOM probably wouldn't - if there wasn't the dual-confusion-possibility trough Malta and sovereignty.
 * Anyway, I agree that we should establish some criteria, otherwise such issues aways re-appear. Alinor (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some states do not recognize "ICRC replacement passports for a single journey" (no other ICRC passport type is listed) - including Switzerland. Alinor (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Exclusions section
Mirroring what Pfainuk said in the above thread, I'm proposing to get rid of the "excluded from this list" section. Most of the links within said section are already included elsewhere anyway: We have a criteria for inclusion. An item either fits it or does not, that's all that's necessary and should be obvious to any reader. We don't need to make a list (with elaborate information, even) of things and explain why each does not meet the criteria. If it's a pre-emptive notice for newbies or something, we can have a Notice at the top of this talk page instead. The article is long enough as it is.  Night w   04:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Antarctica in the footnotes
 * European Union in every member's entry, and in the footnotes
 * Dependent territory in the hatnote
 * Micronation right under the "Other states" heading
 * Federation in every entry to which it's relevant, and in the footnotes
 * The only thing i would leave would be some mention of uncontacted peoples in the lead, since it is possible that there actually are states that are not mentioned. This could be incorporated into the lead. I also think a page entitled List of Soveriegn non-state entities be created with two sections (partial soveriegnty and full soveriegnty).XavierGreen (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, uncontacted people could be mentioned in the lead - or after "other states", but inside their section (as these are actually "potential other states" or something like that).
 * I had proposed a List of sovereign entities before, but the feedback from the other editors was that an entire article about so few entities (one or two, with little possibility for growth - back then I could imagine only GiEs as related) is not advisable - it would result in a single-entry list or a list with two single-entry sections. So, it seems the sovereignty article can easily host this information (as it is currently). We could add a note in the lead about "this list doesn't include sovereign non-state entities" (linking to the exact section of the sovereignty article, where this is described). Alinor (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The micronations note is still needed as well. Ladril (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think XavierGreen means by "would leave" that only the "excluded entities" section should be removed (if uncontacted peoples are mentioned somewhere) - the other notes elsewhere in the article will remain (such as the micronations note)? Alinor (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the entities listed in the excluded section have one of the two prerequisites for being listed (soveriegnty and territory), but micronations and uncontacted people have both. Therefore it need to be mentioned in the lead why they are not included in the list (because they are unverified in sources as states).XavierGreen (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Section removed.  Night w   19:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Uncontacted peoples
The exclusion of this category is currently mentioned in a footnote. I think any further repetition in the main text would be giving undue weight to an item whose relevance and notability here is easily disputable. The category does not meet the criteria, in that its units do not have the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations with any Westphalian state. We already mention the omission of them in the footnotes, let's keep the main text about the list itself, or else risk starting yet another "Excluded entities" section.  Night w   15:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah i didnt see the footnote before, my apologies. As long as the uncontacted folks and micronations were mentioned somewhere thats enough for me, since they were the only 2 groups of polities in the exclusion section that possibly could have met the inclusion criteria.XavierGreen (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I put an extra reflink in.  Night w   19:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Israel annexed the Golan Heights
Under, Israel, Golan is given as occupied but not annexed. Under Syria, it is given as annexed. The latter is correct.

OK, I have to come right out and say it - this article, although very thorough and ultimately superior to most articles I've come across on Wikipedia, is still full of blatant errors. The above is just the one I chose to take the time to write about. I really, really, really have had it with Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.197.211 (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please tell us where else you see errors on the page. This way they can be corrected. Outback the koala (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want something changed you need to provide reliable sources to support the change. For example, the Golan Heights has not been formally annexed by Israel (although in practice it has via the Golan Heights Law and it's often referred to as an annexation) but it is considered to be occupied by the international community. I have updated both the Israel and Syria entries with references. The Golan Heights article linked via the Israel and Syria entries contains the details.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, the Golan is annexed to Israel. Most countries consider occupied the same as they consider East Jerusalem an occupied part of the West Bank, but under Israeli law, the Golan is Israeli, annexed. Under Syrian law, it's an integral part of Syria. This is what counts. It doesn't matter if I recognize your annexation or not; if you annex territory and effectively control it, it's annexed. The international community doesn't dispute this; they just think it's illegal.

Overhaul
Currently making a very large amount of minor edits to make the entire article conform better and to include some omitted info. Do NOT undo the edits, each one contains a vast amount of changes, it is much better to just create a new revision. Xtremerandomness (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I reverted this. You need to get consensus on this page before making such radical edits.  --Taivo (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call them radical so much as consolidating everything together. Please read over everything and don't make judgments based on the amount of red-text. Xtremerandomness (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there were substantive changes as well, such as rewriting the way that the Other States are treated. The bulk of your edits may have been minor, but it is never a good idea to compile pages and pages of edits into one, especially when there are substantial edits mixed in.  Do not revert again.  Read WP:BRD.  It's not your job to get consensus for the non-formatting changes that you were introducing to the text.  --Taivo (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way was the way Other States are treated changed? Every single edit compiled autonomous and disputed territories into lists, and standardised the ways they were treated. In no way were any major changes made.Xtremerandomness (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, you treated Puntland and Somaliland identically under Somalia. They are different--Puntland has declared autonomy, but not independence; Somaliland has declared independence.  Another major change that you introduced was to list all the autonomous regions of Russia.  It was discussed here several months ago that such a listing was rather pointless and unnecessary.  Unless your change is purely formatting, then I suggest you get consensus here first before implementing your ideas on what is "standardized".  --Taivo (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is exactly the reason why I said to later change them if you had problems rather than reverting the entire thing. The majority of edits were fine I'm sure, and it would hardly take time nor effort to change 2 problems.Xtremerandomness (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is never good editing to make so many changes at once. It is always better to make them a piece at a time so that if there is a problem, just the single edit can be changed.  Since you're the one making the changes, it isn't my responsibility to remember what things looked like and try to remember what the status quo looked like in every respect.  --Taivo (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happy to do a revert and change those two issues if you want. I'll try and remember that for next time.Xtremerandomness (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Those were just two examples and not a complete inventory of the problems. There was a lot of discussion a few months ago about keeping all the flags out of it.  They just clutter the presentation.  --Taivo (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So why mix and match? The article is currently a mess and needs to be cleaned up somehow, please stop grasping at straws.Xtremerandomness (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not grasping at straws. But you need to be careful about upsetting consensus here--whether you think it's a mess or not.  This article is currently the subject of a mediation, so anything you do here may be for naught anyway in a month or two.  I wouldn't spend too much time here until the mediation is over and several key issues decided.  --Taivo (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to create an argument, but I tried to preserve every piece of information there and to provide it in a concise way. Agreed, there may have been mistakes, but that's not to say that it all needs reverting. Fine, it may be that the article disappears anyway, but that's beside the point at the current time. If you're going to present arguments as to why they were unnecessary, at least make your case properly.Xtremerandomness (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For a start, it has been agreed that not everything should be bulleted and flagged. It would be an unnecessary trouble to go back through your edit and reprose all of them. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chip it would be a hassle to go back and change things like that. But, looking through your massive edit, most of it wasn't really that interesting and was attempting to make the page consistent. I suggest you simply make the changes in a staged way; that way if someone objects to a change, it would be easy to go back, undo that specific change to discuss it, and leave the rest intact and ok (and hopefully still consistent). Would that be fair? PS, the problem with consistency on this list is there are so many exceptions and unique situations. Outback the koala (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Outback is quite right that consistency is a mirage here. The autonomous regions of Russia are entirely different creatures than Scotland as an autonomous region.  They are autonomous in name only and don't really practice autonomy.  We have to be careful not to confuse the name with the reality in each situation.  Listing all of Russia's "autonomous regions" really isn't appropriate; listing Scotland, Wales, etc. as separate regions of the U.K. is.  --Taivo (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The only autonomous areas that are flagged and bulleted are those that have their autonomy guaranteed by an international treaty such as Aland and the Chinese SARs. The partial soveriegnty of these autonomies is much stronger than an ordinary autonomous subdivision of a polity since their statuses are protected and guarenteed under international law. The consensus on this was very solid, and i highly doubt it will change.XavierGreen (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That being said, we still need something firm for what can be unbulleted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

 * Yes, I think besides some POV issues included in this major overhaul, the main points are "what territories should be mentioned in the extants? of these who should be bulleted? of these who should have flags?"
 * About flags it was already decided some time ago (see talk history) - only official flags should be used and only for the bulleted entries. Bulleted entries that have only unofficial flags should use the "noflag" template.
 * We have List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement, multiple types of List of autonomous areas by country, Dependent territory and maybe something that I missed.
 * I understand that maybe some tweaked arrangement is "better/more common sense-like", but in order to avoid future edit wars I propose the following: bulleted should be only those from Dependent territory and List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement. Non-bulleted and in-line should be notes about Federated states and List of autonomous areas by country (if not already mentioned as bullted; not including special cities - mostly capital regions). The non-bulleted entities will be listed name by name only by exception, when their are only a few or in particularly notable cases (with footnote explaining the notability) - in all the other cases a general link should be used such as "Country XXX has YY number of [autonomous-region-type-name entities]." with link to an article about the specific region type or to [Administrative divisions of XXX].
 * In this way we will avoid having to judge what "autonomous" regions are really autonomous. I know that there will be some "gray area" cases, where common sense would imply different treatment (no mention vs. in-line mention; no bullet vs. bullet - such as here), but if we adopt this policy it would be easy to explain why a particular extant is structured in the way it will be structured - and thus avoid in the future lenghty edit-reverts. Also, I think adoption of this proposal would require only minor changes to the current arrangements. Alinor (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone to agree/disagree with that? Alinor (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which changes would have to be implemented under this proposal? Ladril (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that there wouldn't be too many changes - I will compile a list, but do you all like the general idea or have other suggestion? Alinor (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Danish countries
The official designation for the constituent countries of Denmark, as written in the home rule acts, is folkesamfund, which can be translated as "communities of people" or "nationalities" or whatever terminology the translator chooses. There is no official terminology in English as dictated by the Danish government. The government (1, 2, 3), and secondary sources (1), commonly refer to these units as "countries" in English, and I don't see a problem with adopting that terminology here, and seems the most appropriate.  Night w   18:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We can use both translations if required. However, the reason for insisting on 'community' is because this term is equivalent to 'commonwealth' which expresses the relationship these two polities have with the Kingdom better than 'country'. Ladril (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How can we use both?  Night w   18:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying "communities or countries". The importance of the term 'community' is that, as I understand it, what they want to emphasize is that Greenland and the Faroes are 'bodies of people' with a special relationship with the Crown. The term is used more in the sense of 'the people governed' than the territorial space. Ladril (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is ambiguous, any choice is very close to original research. I suggest to use the term itself: "The Kingdom of Denmark also includes two self-governing "folkesamfund", which is generally translated as communities[ref] or countries[ref]. L.tak (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. This is the English Wikipedia, so we should strive to use English at all times. The translations are provided by sites of the Danish government, so there isn't too much of a problem. Ladril (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One addnl reaction to your "no" (for clarity here...). This very wiki writes for Russia that it consists of "83 federal subjects (oblasts, republics, autonomous okrugs, krays, and federal cities)". Also here the terms seem so specific that no tranlation attempt is made. Do I understand correct that we should try to change those as well? L.tak (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, because our own page on oblast states that this is a loanword in English. I may be wrong in the other cases, though. Ladril (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree we should use english if possible, but I have no problem using legal term to be exact (but not english). But when we don't, we should do so while not engaging in original research and find out what is the common name; I have no problems with that. (FWIW,the CIA factbook says: self-governing overseas administrative division). L.tak (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It cannot be original research, because the information is taken from official sites. It would be original research if we were trying to coin a term the government in question doesn't use, for whatever reason. Ladril (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That depends, if it is a very rarely used term, it would be... But let's make this more specific first: which source do you mean; can you provide some government links? L.tak (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is one for starters: Ladril (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What's this about "commonwealth"; how does that relate here?  Night w   11:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Commonwealth: Body politic founded on law for the common "weal," or good. The term was often used by 17th-century writers to signify an organized political community, its meaning thus being similar to the modern meaning of state or nation. " Ladril (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Tell you what Ladril, get it changed on Greenland, Faroe Islands, Kingdom of Denmark, and and I think it could be changed here. As an aside, the article Rigsfællesskabet currently lists them as "insular regions" Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, let's use whatever terminology is being used in the associated article.  Night w   14:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is going to be another row like in the Cook Islands case, thanks but no thanks. I'd rather let you win. Ladril (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Territories Scheduled for Independence
Should we ("we" meaning "anybody") make a list of territories scheduled for independence (like New Caledonia) or due for a referendum (like South Sudan), or are there too little examples for it to really matter? 97.96.65.123 (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * New Caledonia is scheduled for independence?  Night w   02:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing edit war on the New Caledonia page; however it is scheduled to have a referendum on possible independence some time between 2014 and 2019. The issues on that page are whether it is a constituency country and how independent it really is. Perfect discussion for this crowd. Outback the koala (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't look like an edit war. It's just an IP editor. Why don't you just revert it?  Night w   05:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right edit war is not correct, more like long term disagreement on the article. Yes I shall simply revert the change. Outback the koala (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But anyway, if we could get back to the subject, could we make a page like that, maybe? 97.96.65.123 (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is Electoral calendar navigation, which lists referendums. And that's what you're talking about, right? Nothing is scheduled for independence, they're scheduled for a referendum on self-determination.  Night w   02:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes they are, after said referendum, but then only for a short time. The list would change way too much to be much use. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, such a page is simply not feasible at this time. I don't see any long term usability for such a page. Outback the koala (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The only 3 polities that im aware of that are to have such a referendum scehdualed are Bougainville, New Caledonia, and South Sudan. Though in each case it is unknown what the polity will chose (independence or no) so there would be little value in adding such a list to the page since the results of the referendums are unknown until they actually occur.XavierGreen (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo
It does not have de facto control, administrative control is under the purview of UNMIK and EULEX. De facto control means they have a government fully in control of the territory and fully independent of international decisions, which isn't true at this point. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that any country is "fully independent of international decisions". Countries regularly enter into agreements with treaty organizations like NATO and the UN and the EU, and give up some aspect of decision making to some level of "international control".  -- Jayron  32  07:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody forces you to enter into a treaty, otherwise the treaty is invalid. However, in Kosovo you have UNMIK courts operating internally, EULEX dealing with all foreign relations and multiple NATO bases there for defense. There is no semblance of de facto independent decision making. 99.236.221.124 (talk)
 * RoK is a different entity from UNMIK/EULEX - so it seems to have control - it is not exactly clear. See here. Alinor (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Careful about throwing around the short form "RoK" - there are two of them now! (Korea) Outback the koala (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Definition of sovereign nation?
This may have been included in another page, and if it is it should be posted here for clarity's sake. If not, forming one would be useful, as trying to include or exclude nations on a case-by-case basis is hard to do without being politically biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.128.74 (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The definition is so long that, to be useful, it would outrun the scope of this page. The bluelink "statehood" links to Sovereign state which contains the full list of definitions in gory detail.  Its a complex mess deciding which states, especially at the edges, are "sovereign".  There's also the problem that MANY people confuse "diplomatic recognition" with "recognition as sovereign".  Refusing to recognize a state diplomatically is not the same thing as refusing to recognize that it exists at all.  For example, the U.S. does not diplomatically recognize North Korea.  That doesn't mean that the U.S. thinks North Korea doesn't exist, it just refuses to sanction its current government.  However, there are some states, such as Abkhazia, that the U.S. literally does not recognize as existing in any meaningful sense.  Its not that the U.S. are pissed at the government of Abkhazia and so refuses to conduct business with them (the meaning of "diplomatic recognition"), its that the U.S. recognizes a different state as being in control of the people there.  The U.S. recognizes that the people and land occupied by North Korea are governed by the DPRK, they just refuse to work with them.  Sorry for going off on a tangent, but these kind of questions come up ALL the time... -- Jayron  32  20:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Western Sahara
At the beginning of the article it states that there are 203 sovereign states as of 2010, but Western Sahara is not listed at all. Whether it should be under Internationally Recognized Sovereign State or not is another matter entirely. I didn't count all the states, but I did notice that Western Sahara is on neither of them.

The reason why I post it under the Discussion section, is that when I edited the page the first place, and changed the 203 to 204, it got edited back to 203. And now it's not on the list at all. Please clarify this for me, as it makes no sense to me.

Sorry for my poor English, but I originate from Estonia, and English isn't my motherlanguage. Also therefor try to explain this to me in as understandable English as possible, thank you. RasmusBE (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is listed as Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, but is the Northern area of the Western Sahara recognized widely, the area which is under the control of Morocco? Just so I know. But as I understand now, there's no such country as the Western Sahara - it's just being a buffer zone between two countries? RasmusBE (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole of Western Sahara is recognized by the United Nations as a non-decolonized country i.e. it's on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's still a little confusing, that Morocco owns the Western Sahara's northern area, and SADR owns the southern part - and the whole is recognized by the UN as a non-selfgoverning country. But I think I have at least a clue of what's going on at there. Thank you, Sean Holyland. RasmusBE (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's confusing. Morocco are occupying part/most of Western Sahara, they don't own it, it's not recognized as part of Morroco, they sent hundreds of thousands of settlers to live there and in principal Morocco can't profit from its resources. They built the berm (there is a nice map in that article) with an enormous minefield to separate the part they control from the Polisario-controlled section in the east.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I see what's happening. Thank you once more =) RasmusBE (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Israel "Widely recognized member" ?
How can it say that Israel is a "Widely recognized member" ? There are around 19-20 countries that do not reckognize Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's 19-20 out of 193-207, large amount of recognition for Israel. Either way, proposal is currently underway to change the wording. Waiting for arbitration. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No that is 19-20 states we can prove. If you had to produce documentary evidence for the piecemeal recognition of other states it would be difficult. Only about 80 or so states bother to maintain diplomatic missions in Israel. harlan (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "large" it is, but not unanimously, which the recognition for the majority of the other countries is, and they are described in the same way as Israel. There is something wrong here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a very good question Supreme, one that I've been asking for over a year now. The problem is that "widely recognized" is a WP:WEASEL word.  It doesn't mean anything.  Some editors take it to mean >50% recognition.  Others (myself and evidently you) take it to mean unanimous, or at least nearly unanimous, recognition.  Some feel that UN membership automatically makes a state "widely recognized" (and conversely if a state isn't a UN member then they aren't "widely recognized").  Still others have suggested that territorial disputes, or the lack there of, are the only thing that matters.  The ambiguity of the term means it's impossible to WP:VERIFY whether a state is "widely recognized" or not without doing WP:OR.  (And even if we could decide on the # of recognitions required, we don't have sources for the number of recognizers for each state).
 * There has been extensive discussion of various ways to make the list selection criteria specific, so it's clear which category each state belongs in without doing OR. Unfortunately, a handful of editors who WP:OWN this article have blocked all (20+) proposals discussed to date.  Feel free to join the WP:RFM I filed here.  We are currently waiting for a mediator to be assigned to the case.  It would be good to have a fresh perspective, because the "regulars" here all have pretty entrenched positions.  TDL (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How about we change all countries to "unanimously recognized", and Israel to "largely recognized" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because we can only claim a country is unanimously recognized if we have sources to back that up. Unfortunately, we don't have such sources for most (if not all) states on our list.  And replacing "widely recognized" with "largely recognized" doesn't help the situation.  I could argue that Palestine is "largely recognized".  It's still a WP:WEASEL word.  TDL (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * SD, I think Switzerland and Israel have about the same level of recognition. I forget.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What countries do not reckognize Switzerland? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't remember. I'll try to look it up. I remember reading it once and having the same reaction as you. It's probably places like Cape Verde, maybe places that have never bothered.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion that is probably best redirected to the mediation case. Proper procedure is not to have related discussions unless the mediator is notified.  Night w   19:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Many members of the international community of states used to consider neutral confederations or neutralized states to be a type of limited or restricted sovereignty. See for example Wilson's remarks about Belgium in number seven of his fourteen points speech. and the list of states Talk:List of sovereign states in 1919 in Westel Woodbury Willoughby, Charles Ghequiere Fenwick, "Types of restricted sovereignty and of colonial autonomy", United States. Dept. of State, GPO, 1919  One of the impediments to Switzerland's membership in the UN was the objection that it could not lend the organization "every assistance" (i.e. contribute armed forces) in fulfillment of article 43  of the UN Charter. The prevailing view is that all states are juridically equal (e.g. Art. 4 of the Montevideo Convention ) and are free to determine their own political status, including neutrality (Art. 1 of the ICCPR ). harlan (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since there hasn't been a mediator assigned to the case yet I'm not sure who you are suggesting we should notify Night. There is already a link from the RFM page here, so it should be pretty obvious to everyone involved that there are discussions taking place on this page.  I see no reason why it would be inproper, as you suggest, to continue discussing the issues on the talk page in the interim, while the RFM is in indefinite limbo.  TDL (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO, after we select a WP:V compliant sorting criteria (regardless what) trough the mediation there will be no need to use WP:WEASEL wording, so there will be no "widely recognized" to any states.
 * harlan, exact number of Israel non-recognizers is discussed at the Foreign relations of Israel, Recognition of Israel (both linked from the footnote in this list) and List of states with limited recognition - if you think that Switzerland (and other confederations?) should be added there, please use the talk page there. But keep in mind that not establishing relations is more often because of lack of interest/resources (such as Tuvalu-Monaco relations), not because of non-recognition.
 * For Israel see also August 2010 list by Israel MFA. Alinor (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Alinor, the MFA webpage provides several good examples of ambiguous and incomplete information. It only discusses diplomatic missions and maintenance of diplomatic relations, not actual recognition of Israel's statehood. For example, it dates the mission in Ireland from "1/1975". But on 25 January 1964 the Republic of Ireland publicly disclosed that it had granted de jure recognition to Israel "some time ago". However, it was not until a decade later, on 12 December 1974, that the Irish Republic and Israel announced that they had agreed to establish diplomatic relations. The fact that a state does not appear in a list of diplomatic missions says nothing at all about whether or not it has already recognized Israel as a state by some other legally recognized means. See Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) page 72. Whenever Wikipedia editors conflate "diplomatic recognition" with "recognition of statehood" and make claims here that an entity, like Israel, is a "state with limited recognition" they are engaging in WP:Synth. harlan (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * harlan, I'm well aware of that. I gave this link, because above there were multiple various links, but this obvious place to look for Israel foreign relations was missing. Alinor (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you propose, but about look at the sources provided here: "The following 19 UN member states do not recognize Israel as a state: ..." - if you question some of these (or the 20th) you can take the issue at the talk page there. Alinor (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Alinor I'm suggesting that if Wikipedia is going to have an article about "diplomatic recognition" that it should use an appropriate title to reflect that fact and clearly state that it is not the same thing as recognition of statehood. Eli Hertz is not a spokesman for the 19 UN member states and doesn't appear to know the difference between the two forms of recognition.


 * The Montevideo Convention, the Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law, and a host of other sources explain that recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law, and that recognition can be exercised either explicitly or implicitly. Evidence of the existence of statehood is determined by other states when they decide to "treat" another entity as a state, not when diplomatic relations are established. See for example §201, "h. Determination of statehood", page 74 in "The Restatement of the Law (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States", American Law Institute, 1986, ISBN 0314301380, Volume 1.


 * The Restatement cites the case of the United States treating unrecognized North Korea as a state with international obligations after it captured the U.S.S. Pueblo. In "The recognition of states" Thomas Grant cites Brierly's analysis of Great Britain treating the unrecognized Israel as a state with an obligation to compensate it for aircraft it had shot down. Many of the 19 UN members states listed in the Hertz article have treated Israel as a state with international obligations for decades. Cuba, Lebanon, and Syria filed written statements with the ICJ which, inter alia, said that Israel wasn't fulfilling its obligations under international law as a State. For example, Cuba said "Therefore, Israel, as a State party to the Fourth Geneva Convention and, at the same time, as occupying Power, should comply with the obligation... & etc." see page 13 Diplomatic recognition has nothing to do with whether or not they recognize Israel as a state with all the rights and duties determined by international law. harlan (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I told you I know that and I don't think anybody is disputing that. Have you looked at the inclusion criteria? It is written "capacity to enter into relations with the other states." - not "diplomatic recognition by other states".
 * This is not an article about diplomatic recognition. If you question some particular source of the Foreign relations of Israel you should discuss this at the talk page there.
 * What changes do you propose to the current article? Alinor (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal to have an article about diplomatic recognition and another one about diplomatic relations should be taken into account (I've insisted on this before). Many vehement editors seem to have absolutely no conceptual understanding of the terms. Ladril (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

According to IMF, Kosovo is an independent state
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2008/pr08179.htm Ladril (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It only takes reading the first two sentences. Yes. Ladril (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I read the article, but why post it here? Surely more applicable on some Kosovo article? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. As you should have noticed, over the last months this talk page has seen a strong debate on whether Kosovo's relationship with the IMF amounts to a recognition of statehood under the "Vienna formula". Now there's no doubt. Ladril (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a full member of the IMF, I thought that was established. The issue is the IMF does not give a single vote to each country, but divides votes differently for different countries. The USA has a huge pull in the IMF, hence Kosovo's entry. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I watchlisted this page some months ago as I was interested in the debate, but got tired after a good 1-2 weeks of circles and delisted. If I remember well, the question was whether membership in an organization with a non 1-country-1-vote system would be a useful criteria, not whether such an organization would classify such a state as independent. In addition, the text seems well-chosen "In the context of this application, it has been determined that Kosovo has seceded" not to extend past this context... But more importantly; is there any progress on the debate as a whole? L.tak (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No progress as of such, waiting on arbitration. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "f I remember well, the question was whether membership in an organization with a non 1-country-1-vote system would be a useful criteria, not whether such an organization would classify such a state as independent." No, the question actually goes way beyond that. Not that you'll find a lot of openness to discuss this, though. Ladril (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One organization's opinion on the situation is not enough to establish a definitive conclusion to the Kosovo situation. The 1-1 voting system arguments also have merit. But this is not groundbreaking. Outback the koala (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the section title again: "According to IMF, Kosovo is an independent state ". That's the whole point being made. And yes, this is more groundbreaking than you might expect. Ladril (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) What arbitration? As far as I can tell (though I do not know the specific background of all the people involved, e.g. jayjg), NO current case, case request, or request for amendments or clarification actually have a bearing on this article! Circéus (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Medcom, not Arbcom. We've been waiting for a mediator for the last two months. Pfainuk talk 18:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "One organization's opinion on the situation is not enough to establish a definitive conclusion to the Kosovo situation." Agreed 100%.  This is exactly why I strongly disagree that the list should be based exclusively on UN membership.
 * As for the 1-1 voting issue, this has been resolved. See my post here.  The summary:
 * As per the IMF's website, "To become a member, a country must apply and then be accepted by a majority of the existing members."   So it seems that the "unequal voting shares" don't come into play for IMF membership applications.
 * Unless someone has sources to the contrary, there is no validity to this argument. TDL (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't change the fact that we'd be treating one entry differently to others in similar situations.  Night w   09:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Such as? Ladril (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "the "unequal voting shares" don't come into play for IMF membership applications." Yep, we even presented a source saying at least 90+ IMF states had voted for Kosovo membership. Ladril (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure which situations you are referring to either Night. Care to elaborate?  TDL (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And Western Sahara is a member state of African Union. So membership and statesment of one international organization is not enough. Aotearoa (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many examples of a state from the "10 others" to be a member of international organization. The question is what organizations should be taken into account. The Vienna list organizations are already used as reference by multiple international treaties and organizations. In contrast - AU is a continental organization or a trade bloc at best and I don't think this warrants to use it in this case - it isn't a "worldwide" organization, it isn't representative of the "international community" beyond Africa and most importantly we don't have any indication that membership in AU is utilized as criteria by other unrelated international treaties/organizations. Alinor (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mentioning such organizations is relevant, since it brings a degree of legitimacy to the state at hand. Morocco withdrew from OAU due to SADR participation, after all. BTW, no one is arguing that a single organization¡s viewpoint is enough to establish the statehood of a specific entity. That's just a straw man. The whole point of listing the organizations is to enrich the encyclopedia with multiple points of view. Ladril (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is A] how we choose what organizations to mention and B] how we choose what states needs somebody to "bring a degree of legitimacy" (because I don't see anybody suggesting listing the organizations where France is member in its entry). Or another thing - are the Community for Democracy and Human Rights and Asian-African Conference organizations that we should mention? Why do we choose one over the other? What about Central European Free Trade Agreement? What about other cases, where a related entity is a member/observer, but not the 'state' itself (e.g. UNMIK instead of Republic of Kosovo; PNA/PLO instead of the State of Palestine)?
 * You can see in sandobox2 implemented the following rule: A] in each country extant is mentioned its participation in the UN and supranational unions (so far, only the EU). B] If the country is not member of the UN (e.g. observer or no relation at all) - its participation in the Vienna list organizations is additionally mentioned. - This arrangement is just one of many possibilities, but we need clear answers to the A&B questions, otherwise the extants will become a mess.
 * That's why it's better that we have consistent structure of the extants. And this is related to the autonomous territories proposal too. Generally we need a common template - I suggest the following: 'organizations participation' (UN, supranational unions; if not UN member - add Vienna organizations), 'head-of-state special cases' (commonwealth realm, other "common/shared" cases - Andorra and others, if any), 'autonomous/other territories' (see here), 'recognition issues', 'territorial claims issues', 'other relevant notes in special cases'). Alinor (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Here undue importance is being given to IMF, specially as an organization who could decide a country's sovereignty. It is a well known fact that a few developed nations with large economies control more than 50 percent voting rights while majority of other countries of the developing and underdeveloped world with larger population are underrepresented. Moreover IMF has been consistently been accused by various mainstream media around the world of acting as a medium of advancing the interests of a select group of nations to exploit the resources of weaker countries. I don't see how an organization which is not neutral even in it's core aspect(economy) could be used as a standard for judging an non core issue(politics and sovereignty).--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my post here. As per the IMF, your suggestion that a minority of member states can grant an applicant state IMF membership is incorrect.  Their website claims that states need the support from a majority of member states to join the organization.  So your argument is moot.
 * It's also a well known fact that a few countries which happened to win WWII control the UNSC and can block states from joining the UN. The UNSC has also been accused of acting in the interests of a few nations at the expense of others.  So by your logic we should eliminate any mention of UN membership?  NPOV doesn't mean we shouldn't mention non-neutral positions.  The reality is that EVERY position is non-neutral.  NPOV merely demands we present both (non-neutral) sides of the debate.
 * No one is suggesting that the IMF's position be the ONLY position represented. But as Ladril stated, I certainly think it's notable, at least for states which are on the fringe like Kosovo, to demonstrate that they have some international support.  If Palestine joined the WHO (as they have attempted and been blocked from in the past) this would be a very significant and notable achievement on their path to independence and should be mentioned.  TDL (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But it's still a minority viewpoint, so the previous editor's reference to undue weight can't be dismissed. You're asking to take a state whose sovereignty is not recognised by the majority of the international community, and to present it on equal footing with states in the opposite situation. That isn't neutral, and it's definitely giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint without sufficiently representing the view of the majority.  Night w   06:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification. Kosovo membership as a state (Republic of Kosovo; not as UNMIK or something else) in the IMF was supported by "96 of the IMF members" (see discussion TDL linked to). This is a majority of the IMF members (185 at the time of voting, 187 now) and 50% of the UN members (192). It may be called a minority only if you take as total some bigger figure (Night w, you know what I'm talking about).
 * "to present it on equal footing with states in the opposite situation" - what do you mean by this? It is in the "other states" section, so clearly nobody is presenting it on equal footing with the "proper real states" (or "weaselish widely recognized" if somebody prefers it that way).
 * I think the whole discussion here wouldn't be needed if we have finished the work on the sorting criteria (let's hope mediation will start soon) - because then, hopefully, we will have a clear criteria for the sorting of the list, who goes where and how, there would be no "undue weights" and "presenting on equal footing when it isn't". Alinor (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Have I missed the point of this discussion? I thought this was connected to the proposed sorting criteria? I'm not disputing Kosovo's membership or how it got it. I'm saying that its inclusion in the first section of this list—which is part of what is being proposed, I believe—would, officially, not represent the viewpoint of the majority of states.  Night w   07:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we both miss the point. After your question I'm not sure what it is - so far I thought it was about whether to mention IMF membership in the Kosovo extant or not. Maybe Ladril will clarify this. If it is about moving Kosovo to the first section (as you suggest) - then I propose that we wait for the sorting criteria mediation process to finish (or to select sorting criteria in another way), so that we don't have to deal with each case individually. Alinor (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some users need to be reminded they are not the owners of this article. Ladril (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, obviously there is the bigger debate over sorting, but at the moment we're just discussing whether IMF/WB membership should be mentioned in the Kosovo's extant. Ladril added it and Night reverted it with the statement "we don't list membership in UN organs".  No one is presently proposing that Kosovo be presented on an equal footing with the "widely recognized states".  But I think it's a significant fact, even if it is a minority view point, and should be presented.  TDL (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there should be noted memberships of international organisations. Perhaps we could wikilink to International recognition of Kosovo, and similar pages for the other countries, which mentions IMF and other such things. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. Then don't mention the UN at all on this page. Ladril (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Membership in the U.N. General Assembly is widely considered to be recognition on a different level than membership in some other international organization. Membership in the U.N. General Assembly is membership in an organization whose focus is on a broad range of issues.  Membership in the IMF is not a "broad issue" membership, but is only focused on financial issues and not on determining sovereignty or international relations.  It's only about moving money.  --Taivo (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, whatever you say. Ladril (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "It's only about moving money" - if we are going to judge relevance of the international organizations we should use a verifiable criteria - and as it was already explained in the past - one such criteria is the Vienna formula that is widely used by many treaties/organizations (but of course another criteria may be proposed) - and does not depend on judgments by individual editors.
 * I agree with Ladril that Kosovo membership of IMF is notable, but I think that it's better if leave this issue aside for the moment, as it's closely related with the sorting criteria discussion, that is not yet concluded (hopefully the mediation will begin soon). Alinor (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It won't. Apparently there are three unassigned cases before this one. Also I won't be participating any more. I have better things to do with my time. Ladril (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Different mediation cases can be taken care simultaneously, so I hope that our case will start sooner. Anyway, it's up to you decide whether to participate, but I don't see a problem with doing something else and joining the mediation when it begins?
 * Don't be frustrated by the opposition to your proposals and lack of progress - let's wait to clarify the sorting criteria - hopefully afterwards everything will be sorted out 'automatically' (depending on the criteria selected finally).
 * Also, there were options on how to proceed if we don't agree on the sorting criteria. But we aren't there yet, are we? Alinor (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that the mediation needs to proceed. My sole point here is that a single, specialized criterion--IMF membership--is not sufficient to move Kosovo to the top list.  --Taivo (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Has anybody ever moved Kosovo "to the top list"? I would really like to know. Ladril (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Taivo, nobody is suggesting that IMF should be "single specialized criteria" for moving "to the top list". Also, the fact that we call the two lists "top" and "other" means that we really need real sorting criteria. Alinor (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ladril, you can see in my comment of 06:42, 26 December 2010 that in the last proposal before the mediation it was arranged that memberships in specialized agencies are listed (at least for the non-members of the UN, but the question whether this should apply to all is one of the things that should be discussed). Alinor (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I was around and I remember that the proposal was to make a second list with the states that are members of specialized agencies but not of the General Assembly (namely, the Holy See, the Cook Islands, Niue and Kosovo). No one was proposing putting Kosovo next to Germany or anything like that. Ladril (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Until the mediation occurs, the current sorting criteria stands as those states that are widely recognized. As such under no definition can Kosovo be moved to the top section unless (in the broadest definition we have discussed so far) it gets recognition from at least 50% of independent states. Even then it will be disputed, but at least we wont have to worry to much under the current criteria until that happens or if the arbicom ever starts. A much more puzzling scenario will be if South Sudan declares independence next month. They we will have a whole nother issue to tackle (im sure they will reach 50% faster than kosovo will).XavierGreen (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Taivo and Xavier, it would be helpful if you read the discussion first. As mentioned above, the debate here is over whether or not IMF/WB membership should be mentioned in Kosovo's extant.  It has nothing to do with the sorting.  This is a separate issue which is on hold pending the opening of the mediation case.
 * Xavier, I agree that Southern Sudan is going to cause huge issues in the near future and clearly demonstrate the extent of OR required to decide if a state is "widely recognized" or not. All the more reason to come up with a specific criteria beforehand.
 * Ladril, don't despair over the status of mediation. If no mediator takes up the case shortly, and the owners of this article refuse to accept one of the numerous compromises suggested, the case will be referred to an arbitrator who will impose a solution.  I suspect your arguments, which are always very well sourced and thought out, would be extremely persuasive in such a scenario.  TDL (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * XavierGreen, we don't have "current sorting criteria". We have a weasel phrase "widely recognized". You put 50% mark, but others obviously use different metric, because the State of Palestine has at minimum 52% recognition (using the most conservative figure of 107 recognitions and 207 for the total, e.g. 107/(207-Palestine itself)=51.9%) or slightly over 2/3 recognition (using the bigger figure of 130 recognitions and the 192 UN members for the total, e.g. 130/192=67%). Anyway, this is irrelevant, because we don't have sorting criteria yet. Alinor (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are criteria currently in place, whether or not you think its valid is a different story, as ive said before if someone could prove that Palestine has greater than 50% recognition, than they could be moved to the top section under certain definitions of widely recognized.XavierGreen (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Breaking my vow. Xavier, whatever criteria are currently in place ought to be in the article text, and I can't see them anywhere. As long as this situation prevails, the other users are within their full rights to ask for a clarification of them. If this clarification is requested and every  strong opposer gives a whole different interpretation of them (as has happened here), then they have every right to request an open and consensual definition of criteria, even if that involves breaking the sacred order. Ladril (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Its listed within the article itself, in the first section every single listing contains the words "Widely recognized state", while the second section does not. Of course its ambiguous, but its still there none the less.XavierGreen (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Xavier, can you please explain what the criteria is? "widely recognized" isn't a criteria.  It's a WP:Weasely statement used by certain editors to disguise their POV pushing.  There should be a statement somewhere explaining precisely what we mean by "widely recognized".  I can't disagree with the criteria, because there is no criteria.  You seem to think the criteria is 50% recognition, but then why isn't this mentioned in the article?
 * As for Palestine, see Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. Alinor and Night have done a lot of good work on this article and found sources for 107 states that recognize Palestine.  Does that make them widely recognized?  TDL (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By some peoples definitions of what widely recognized means (including my own) it would be yes, but im sure other people who have other ideas of what widely recognized means it would not.XavierGreen (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong Xavier. There are no criteria such as the ones you wrote down previously *in the article text*. All we have are the vague phrases 'widely recognized' and 'other states' with no explanation of what they mean. This is akin to using the words 'large' and 'small' to describe states by size, without a single note explaining what the categories mean. This is contrary to the spirit of the manual of style, which indicates that criteria for categorization must be "clear and consistent". An encyclopedia ought to use defining criteria that are scientific, not people's vague common sense ideas. Ladril (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are missing a key part of what i said, the current critera are ambiguous, some people have different viewpoints on what it means The page is currently divided into polities that are widely recognized and polities that are not. That means that the current critera on the page is whether or not something is widely recognized. That is quite clear from reading the article. Now i agree with you that what widely recognized means is subject to dispute, all i am saying is that the broadest definition so far proposed of what widely recognized means is greater than 50% recognition. I think everyone would agree that a state cannot have wide recognition if it is recognized by less than half of all states. Now does everyone agree that the threshold is at 50%? No, some people think it is higher per the previous discussion and this ambiguity is what lead to the proposals of new sorting criteria, since the current sorting criteria is argued to be way to ambiguous to be useful. If there truely were no sorting criteria as you suggest, than there would not be two sections on the page.XavierGreen (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone mind if this thread reaches an agreement before going ahead with whatever is being proposed?  Night w   10:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why treat Kosovo's membership differently? We don't mention any other members, so why treat one case differently to the rest?  Night w   10:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the suggestion is to treat Kosovo specially. The idea is to indicate for each state" how integrated they are in the UN system.  For full members we state as much.  For states which aren't full members, but are members of a specialized agency (Kosovo, Vatican) we would mention that.  16:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it would be fair to also mention that Palestine is a full member of the Asian group of states in the UN regional groupings?  Night w   09:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Night w, you are well aware that this is a dubious claim. Have you and Eliko reached consensus over this?
 * Besides "Asia UN group" is not an international organization, but a grouping inside UN (and it's even informal). Also, it deals with issues not related to non-members (such as voting, etc.), so it's not clear what is a "membership" of UN non-member in this group (if there is such thing in the first place, e.g. if this is not a mistake mixing up 'UN ECS for Western Asia' with the voting group).
 * And finally, we need a proper guideline what organizations will be noted and what not. Because most of the "10 others" are members of different organizations - see 06:42, 26 December 2010 comment above. Alinor (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a claim widely supported by reliable sources that has been brought under dispute by a user pushing a POV. I'm not actually suggesting listing this membership, I'm simply demonstrating that a state's affiliation with areas of the UN outside the General Assembly is not something worth mentioning on this list. Previous consensus was not to list any organisations other than the GA and the EU.  Night w   10:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Northern Cyprus' membership in the Islamic Conference is mentioned, while it isn¡t mentioned for any of the other members. Same for Taiwan's membership of the WHO and SADR's membership of the African Union. There is a rationale for this. So for the time being we will be going with what has been done so far. Besides the UN specialized agencies are not subordinated to the General Assembly, so you're not actually demonstrating anything. Ladril (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Before adding stuff to the article, a consensus should be reached here first. (Read WP:BRD.)  No consensus has been reached whether IMF membership should be mentioned.  In the cases of Northern Cyprus and SADR, their international status is so limited that any form of recognition is relevant.  However, Kosovo is not in that position as many countries have recognized it and it is clearly on a more stable footing than either Northern Cyprus or SADR.  There is no consensus on including IMF for Kosovo or any other state at this point.  Adding it to the article is just WP:POINTy editing.  --Taivo (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're going to start talking about Wikipedia's uses and customs, you don't usually delete stuff due to "no consensus". In the interest of keeping the peace, I've yielded several times to a particular user who feels entitled in the past, but I definitely do not intend to do so in this case. Unless I read a very good reason for not listing Kosovo's most relevant international organization memberships, I'll make sure this stands. Ladril (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So you're suggesting that Kosovo is "widely recognized"? I agree that for states in our main list it's not as helpful to mention every single organization they are a member of.  But for states in the "Other states" section I think it is helpful and demonstrates the very fact that you pointed out: Kosovo is more stable than NC or SADR as evidence by their IMF/WB membership.  TDL (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's more widely recognized than Northern Cyprus and SADR, but does not belong in the top list. The number of states that recognize it is proof enough, so that adding every international organization that it belongs to is not necessary since the whole idea of the notes in the Other States section is to give readers a relative feel of how integrated into international society each of these states is without producing a laundry list of evidence for each one.  Adding IMF to Kosovo does nothing to change its relative status in the list since there are already many countries that recognize it.  If Somaliland, however, became a member of IMF, that would be a very big deal since it isn't recognized by anyone at the present time.  Adding IMF status to Kosovo really doesn't change its relative level of recognition.  It's not about laundry lists, but only about giving a general representation of how widely recognized a state is.  --Taivo (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you that this shouldn't become a laundry list of every international organizations a state is a member of. But I fail to see why there is such opposition to mentioning the single most significant organization that Kosovo is a member of.  If it was no big deal that Kosovo joined the IMF, as you suggest, why did Serbia/Russia make such a big deal about it?
 * By your logic, for states that are universally recognized, in your own words "The number of states that recognize it is proof enough". There should be no need to mention their UN/EU membership.  Shall we delete these mentions?  TDL (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly a case of POV pushing by Ladril. All the examples given by him are of organizations who have almost unanimously provided entry to the specific nation. Taiwan's membership of WHO and IOC was accepted by almost all other countries including China. Similarly Northern Cyprus' entry in Islamic Conference and SADR's membership of the African Union went almost unopposed in respective organization. Kosovo's entry to IMF and WB was strongly opposed by most countries and only became possible as a result of a few powerful countries. Clearly no parallels can be drawn between the examples.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is the degree of unanimity important? Should we not mention the PRC's UN membership because it was only approved by 76 of 128 states?  In fact, any attempt by us to decide how unanimous a vote needs to be to be worthy of being mentioned would be a clear violation of WP:OR.  All we can do is report the outcome of the vote, not do our own interpretation.
 * As for the Kosovo/IMF issue, please read the previous discussion on this topic. Your facts are all wrong.  96 states (out of 138 that voted) supported Kosovo's entry into the IMF, so the suggestion that "Kosovo's entry to IMF and WB was strongly opposed by most countries" is just plain wrong.  TDL (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also have kids for breakfast. Another one of my manias is take the time to do a bit of research. Just as a counterpoint, SADR's membership in the OAU was approved with a simple majority of 26 states and caused a major rift in the membership (page 151). So the argument that "SADR's membership of the African Union went almost unopposed in respective organization" is, to use a kind word, bollocks. Ladril (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ladril, you've just violated 3RR. Please argue your point on the talk page, and get a consensus from other editors before you make the same edit again. You're being deliberately disruptive.  Night w   04:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree, however, that there should be some level of consistency in the list. If association with an organisation is mentioned for one entry, it should be the same for all others.  Night w   04:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The point has been argued with no response. The ball is on the other court. But "no consensus" is not a reason. Ladril (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I only count 2 R's for Ladril (and 1 for you) in the last 24h. I agree with you that we should try and establish a consensus on these issue before trying to push them through, however I completely understand Ladril's frustration.  Some editors here feel they can own this article by reverting any changes and refusing to discuss/compromise on the issues.  BRD only works if the R is followed by D.
 * As Ladril pointed out, it seems that the current consensus is to list "lesser" international organizations that the "other states" are a member of. OIC, AU, WHO, WTO, IOC are all mentioned only for a single state.  Are you suggesting these should be removed?  The reality is that Taiwan's WHO status is FAR more significant than it is for France.  For states in the "Other states" section, where they are likely to belong to few international organizations, the threshold for notability is far lower than it is for states on the main list.  It only seems proper to mention these lesser organizations for these states.  As long as we are consistent within each section of the list I don't see the problem.  TDL (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see much point in continuing to discuss this. If others want to continue, go ahead. Ladril (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that as long as there's a clear guideline set regarding which organisations to mention.  Night w   05:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the following suggestion here:
 * for UN members -
 * UN only or
 * UN and participation (can be member or observer/associate/other) in the rest of Vienna list organizations or
 * UN and participation in the rest of Vienna list organizations and in any other international organization
 * for the rest of Vienna list organizations members -
 * participation in the Vienna list organizations or
 * participation in the Vienna list organizations and in any other international organization
 * for the non-Vienna states -
 * participation in the Vienna list organizations (observer/associate/other) or
 * participation in the Vienna list organizations and in any other international organization Alinor (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer options1 in all cases (as it gives us a defined and manageable list of organizations to mention). I understand some arguments in choosing options2 for non-UN states, but what do you all think? Alinor (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say option 1 for the first two sections is best. But if a state isn't a member of a vienna organization, I think it's worth mentioning other memberships (SADR in the AU for example).  However, I understand Night's concern over setting a limit over which organizations should be listed.  Perhaps just the Vienna organizations + regional unions?  That way we keep SADR+AU, NC+OIC, Taiwan+WHO, and get rid of the WTO and IOC notes.  The IOC seems particularly non-notable since it allows non-sovereign states to have a NOC.  (Note: Palestine also has a NOC so either we should remove the IOC from Taiwan or add it to Palestine).  The same goes for the WTO (Hong Kong is a full member).  TDL (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong WTO membership is irrelevant, because (I think) we discuss here what organizations to mention in the extants of already included states - not what is used as inclusion criteria - so Hong Kong is not included and thus its memberships are irrelevant.
 * I don't think that OIC is "regional organization" - it can be called a "religious organization".
 * Also, there is another problem in the cases of Palestine, Kosovo and maybe some of the other10. For example Kosovo participates in IMF/WBG as RoK, but in other organizations the membership is of UNMIK. Palestine participates in OIC/AL as SoP, but in other organizations as PLO/PNA. Should we take all into account or only these where the state entity (RoK/SoP/etc.) is a member?
 * People that like to arrange things along the UN may like the following idea - replace "any organization" in the above examples with "any organization that is UN observer or part of the UN System. Benefit: restricts to a manageable size the list. Negative: UN POV exclusion of some organizations where the other10 are members. Alinor (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "You are missing a key part of what i said". Xavier, you are just repeating the same points over and over. For starters, the page has never said "widely recognized", only "internationally recognized", the second term being even more problematic than the first. Secondly... well, what I said above: even if many people agree on being comfortable with a vague definition, this still does not solve the problem of a lack of clear and defined sorting criteria. Ladril (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

references in a box
I see some weird arrangement of references like [11] in a dotted box - for example in Fiji line (and others). Alinor (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Recent change to rom caused this. I fixed that, but the template recommends that rom be replaced with transl instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

arrangement
I haven't followed the discussion here for ages, so revert me if I'm stepping on any toes. I rearranged the states with partial recognition according to the extent of that recognition. Certainly Palestine, Kosovo, and Taiwan are closer to being regular states than is N. Cyprus, which attempted to merge with Cyprus. Of course, that does not correspond to degree of sovereignty, but the latter would be a difficult thing to measure. — kwami (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Our map shows rec. of Palestine from 113 UN member states. That actually is a majority, so we should probably change that wording, though I can't think of anything that does not sound silly. (2/3 would I guess be alright; we'd need s.t. to separate it from the Vatican at 178, unless we plan to move the Vatican to the partially-rec'd list.) Given the recent increase in recognition, IMO it would be a good idea to make a template like we have for Taiwan. — kwami (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * These are great ideas, Kwami. Although, these kind of things are currently under formal mediation. I'd suggest that you wait until mediation begins, and then present a proposal to the committee.  Night w   05:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I tried avoiding anything controversial, like moving the Vatican or adding or removing countries, and stuck to things I thought would make the list more user friendly. But sure, revert if you object. — kwami (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing that seems ambiguous with your edits is the old problem of palestine, as it is recognized by a majority of states.XavierGreen (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I just couldn't think of a good word. "Super majority" sounds stupid, and any specific number seems arbitrary. The clincher there is that it's not fully sovereign, but that's a difficult thing to measure. — kwami (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to straight revert the changes but I think we need to change the sorting from UN recognition to '# states recognizing' or something like that -because we get back to the whole UN thing(is it objective body/we use it for main list, why not for other states too...). It's informative so we should really keep it in the article, but the other part is that we are sorting by recognition and not alphabetically now which is how the rest of the article is. We should change it back to alpha order but keep everything else. Thoughts? Outback the koala (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not by UN recognition, but by recognition of UN members, which if I'm reading you right is what you're proposing. We could have recognition by all states if you like; that wouldn't change anything at the top end, but probably would at the bottom where we have unrecognized states recognizing each other. For me it was simply a straightforward number to use. But sure, arrangement by # of all states that we list in this article would work too. — kwami (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I was confusing at all. Yes that is exactly what I'm saying; we should move to all states. What do you think about sorting alphabetically? Outback the koala (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since this is a list of sovereign states, but not all of those states are sovereign, I think some sort of non-arbitrary ordering is appropriate. — kwami (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Which states do you regard as non-sovereign? From above you mentioned Palestine, any others? I also don't think we should include Palestine on this list. Like the SMOM it is recognised as a state by some, but doesn't really have a de facto authority. Either way Alpha order is the best way to leave it organizationally. Plus it makes states closer to the top of the list seem more legitimate than those below it, which is arguable, but gives a bad impression and is unequal. Outback the koala (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Western Sahara isn't sovereign. — kwami (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is (it claims the territory of Western Sahara and controls part of it). It's one of the 10others (so it's sovereignty is disputed - especially by Morocco, but so is the case with any of the 10others). Alinor (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that we should order states according to the number of recognitions. While we have this information for the 10others and a few of the UN members we don't have such for the rest of the list (we assume it's "all" be we don't have sources for that). Also, alphabetic arrangement is the most common configuration for any list. We deviate here by breaking it into parts ("193 vs. 10others" - and we don't yet have a sorting criteria for this division) - so I propose that we leave the two sections sorted alphabetically and don't deviate any further (at least until we have a clear sorting criteria for the first division). Also, adding the "UN member recognition" column is pushing again the "UN membership POV" (that is contrary even to the "UN POV" itself) - why don't we count the Vatican here? Why don't we count the 10others? Both the Vatican and the 10others are included in the very same List of sovereign states after all.

Also, I don't think that we should use "number of recognitions" as inclusion/sorting/ordering criteria - unless we have a very compelling source to back up the inevitably arbitrary division marks that we would apply (such as 50%, 2/3, etc. and whether to count recognitions by non-members of the UN or not).

About the change in the section description: "This annex lists states that claim sovereignty and have control over (part of or all of) their claimed territories, but due to disputes over their legitimacy, do not have normal diplomatic relations with many sovereign states. None of the states in this annex list are UN member states." was changed to "... do not have normal diplomatic relations with a majority of sovereign states ..." - Palestine has recognition between >52% of all, not just UN members (here we have sources for each of the states recognizers) to >2/3 of UN members (according to sources that don't give the exact names of states recognizers). So, I propose that we use "...but due to disputes over their legitimacy, are not recognized by '''many sovereign states..."

I haven't checked the extant notes - I assume that there are no changes there. Alinor (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that UN member recognition is pushing a UN recognition POV. The UN isn't the same as its member states. But again, recognition by all states in this list would work too, so that's just a detail. If we did that, I though people might object 'why are we counting recognition by Transnistria, when we no-one recs Transnistria?' But if that's not a problem, let's go ahead and count the 10others in that column. Since recognition has an effect on the viability of a state, it still seems appropriate to me, but as I said, I did this because I thought it would be useful, and if others think it isn't useful, then it probably isn't. — kwami (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but besides the "total" I mentioned other concerns too. Besides, the main issue of sorting criteria is not yet resolved - and it may involve a change of the table format - so I propose that we wait with these changes until we have selected a sorting criteria. Alinor (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer if the entries were arranged alphabetically, as it's described in the lead and as the main list is also arranged. It seems like a ranking system arranged as it is now, and it means a reader must search for the desired entry.  Night w   15:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that alphabetical is the way to go, it allows it to be easily searchable and would match the way the first section is arrainged.XavierGreen (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, should we restore back to alphabetic ordering version? Alinor (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Outback the koala (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alphabetical order can be restored if needed without reverting over other changes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted the change from "many sovereign states" to "a majority of sovereign states" since this isn't true. Palestine is recognized by >50% of states.  Until we come up with a better way to divide the list, the only way to accurately describe the members of the annex list is by vague terms like "many".  TDL (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless we just move palestine to the top list, it could be considered pov to leave it in the bottom.XavierGreen (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * XavierGreen, that's why we need sorting criteria. Currently we don't have such. That's why I'm opposed to any moves until we can make the move based on a rule/criteria and not on individual case-by-case basis (that is prone to leaning in POV directions).
 * As a side note - I don't think we should list recognitions number in the table only for some of the entries (10others). If we are going to do this it needs to be for all or none. The numbers are already mentioned in the extant - so readers can get this information anyway. Alinor (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * JHunterJ, you deleted "Romanization in Pinyin." footnote with the explanation "remove non-cite citation". Would you elaborate why this deletion is needed? Alinor (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this related to the rom-template problem below or something else? Anyway, if you want this deleted - you don't need to revert my whole edit- you can delete just this reference. Alinor (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it was a note/reference confusion. I'll fix up the article soon, if noone else does. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was also boxed because of the rom template bug, but "this is Pinyin" isn't a citation, that's why rather than moving it I deleted it as a non-cite citation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and moved it and other similar ones. Some of the references look like they really need to be adjusted, but I'll leave them as is for now pending reaction to what I did. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Why delete the UN member recognition column? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * IMHO - because it doesn't stretch the whole list, but only 10 of its lines and because the list has already too much "UN membership POV". Recognitions are already mentioned in the extants. Alinor (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Mayotte Department or Collectivity?
The French Territorial Colectivity of Mayotte is schedualed to become an overseas department this year. Looking at various wikipedia articles some state that this has not happened yet including this one, but others such as the list of french overseas territories state the opposite. My question is does anyone know the date which that status is supposed to change or if it already has when did it happen? A google news search provided no relevant information.XavierGreen (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a quick google news search and it turned up a bunch of sources indicating that the transition will occur in March 2011.  (ie., , ) TDL (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan
All of the regulars here should keep an eye out to make sure South Sudan isnt added to the page as an independent state before they actually declare independence. Its likely that once the voting ends the people will choose indepenedence, but that the Government may wait a day or even longer to actually declare it in order to certify the results and actually decare independence. But we should wait till the South Sudanese government actually declares it rather than simply the announcement of the results.XavierGreen (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The results will not be announced until February 1. Ladril (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I read in the IHT that they'd declare independence in July, so perhaps add a hidden note? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * May be that in this case a declaration of independence is not necessary, since the will of the people is already expressed in the referendum results. The establishment of state institutions may be enough. Ladril (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Southern Sudan will not meet our inclusion criteria (specifically, the point about a state regarding itself as independent) until independence is declared. I would oppose inclusion on that basis. Pfainuk talk 18:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, here comes the dogpiling again. I should shut up, I guess. Ladril (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of my detractors, one can see preliminary official results here:. Ladril (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely ridiculous results. Quite impressive actually. Any word on the actual name of the new country? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It won't be declared until June at least.  Night w   15:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am mildly amused by the 99.98% vote for succession in Unity State. The result seems pretty clear-cut.  According to our Southern Sudan article, and assuming that 3.7 million previously unknown votes don't appear out of thin air (or something), independence will be declared on 9 July.  Once we know the name of the new state, we should prepare our entry in comments, ready for inclusion once it is actually declared. (This would be similar to the process we used for Barack Obama, for example: everything was prepared in comments and then decommented at noon EST on 20 January 2009.) Pfainuk talk 21:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

possessions
Galapagos should be included as part of Ecuador Canary Islands (two departments) should be included as parts of Spain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.105.12 (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And they are. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorting criteria
And I just clicked there and saw that the case is closed, because of "no mediator available". Any ideas on further action? Alinor (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:MEDCAB? They tend to have more mediators than Medcom, but they are less formal. Pfainuk talk 21:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, Let's try there. Alinor (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Will you file it or should I do it instead? Or should we ask TDL as MEDCOM filing party to re-post it at MEDCAB? Alinor (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't sign me on as a party on that one. Thanks to a few users here, I've reduced my Wikipedia participation on these sorts of topics to a minimum. Ladril (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can file the MEDCAB request. TDL (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And it's live: Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-01-25/List_of_sovereign_states. TDL (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a mediator willing to take the case, but user LlywelynII declined. Just informing all interested here, I don't know what this means. Alinor (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Contested States in World Politics by Deon Geldenhuys
I just looked at this talk page for the first time in a long while and I noticed that there is a dispute over what criteria separate the first, large part of this list from the second, smaller part. I happen to be reading the book Contested States in World Politics by Deon Geldenhuys at the moment, which might provide useful in this context, since it singles out the exact same 10 countries that are contained in the second part of our list. It also discusses problematic canonic states such as Somalia. sephia karta |  dimmi  22:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't read it, but "The key feature of all these aspirant states is that their claims to statehood are being contested by the vast majority of existing states, thus causing serious tension in their respective neighbourhoods." Perhaps that's useful? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Not weasel
I have removed two weasel tags from the lead on the grounds that "Clearly not weasel since, a.) full definitions are given in the linked articles and b.) a "Criteria for inclusion" section is referred to for full details." Rich Farmbrough, 18:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Where is definition of "widely recognized"? Is Israel widely recognized? PRChina? Palestine? Kosovo? Cook Islands? Vatican? Alinor (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alinor, stop the WP:POINTy tagging. There is a mediation going on and such discussion belongs there.  These terms have been used here for a long time without your POV tagging.  Take it to mediation.  --Taivo (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please refrain from removing the tags without discussion. I suggest that we leave the tags until the issue of sorting criteria is resolved. Alinor (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your tags were added after mediation was initiated. This article has been quite fine without tags for over a year.  Your tags, therefore are WP:POINTy and not appropriate.  Read WP:BRD.  If you add something and it is reverted, you don't add it again before coming here and getting a consensus.  --Taivo (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * These are not "mine" tags. And they were NOT added after mediation was initiated. See . These tags were put on the page months ago - before . So, about WP:BRD - Farmbrough removed these in a bold change, but used explanation that I questioned here above when I reverted his change. And the tags obviously should remain until the issue of sorting criteria is resolved (trough mediation or otherwise). Please stop removing these and wait for the mediation. Alinor (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we not edit war over tags? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Months ago" was January, which was AFTER the mediation process was begun. This article had existed without those needless tags for at least a year before.  --Taivo (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Taivo, should I really point out obvious things here? Have you even looked at the history versions of the page, at the mediation page or at the links I gave above? The MEDCAB was requested on 25/26 January 2011. One of the links with the tags that I gave you is from 8 January 2011. And you can check that the tags were there since months already. The date of the tags themselves is "Novemeber 2010"! And these November tags substituted earlier tags that were in place since September 2010 or earlier (the other link I gave you). Alinor (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The weasel tags have been there since at least October 4th, and prior to that there was a more general OR tag on these phrases back to August 30th . So the article has been "quite fine" with the tags for six months.  Not that WP:LONGTIME is a valid argument in any case, but if that's what you're arguing we should at least get the facts right.
 * As for the tag itself, Wiki policy is clear that they shouldn't be removed until there is a consensus to do so. See WP:TAGGING: "In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV.  Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved".  Clearly, with this dispute under mediation it's not been resolved and hence the tags should stay until such time as it is resolved. TDL (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alinor, this was RE-submitted to mediation in January. The original submission was last fall sometime.  If you're going to complain about my facts, you need to get your own facts straight first.  The original submission failed to attract a mediator and had to be resubmitted.  If others accept the tags, then I'll not complain about them anymore.  I prefer an overall tag (such as OR) to labelling each occurrence of a disputed term, however.  It detracts less from the text.  --Taivo (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Taivo, you are again speaking without checking. I know that there was a previous MEDCOM request from 20 October 2010. The tags were already there beforehand (as TDL also said) - see 19 October 2010 version (and earlier). Please, do these checks yourself. Also, having the issue of sorting criteria at mediation doesn't mean that we can't add tags to the sorting criteria. The mediation (or other discussion) means that it's not advisable to change the sorting criteria (because another change is under mediation/discussion), not that they can't be tagged. Anyway, in this case the tags predate the mediations. Alinor (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Taivo here that the blanket maintenance tag at the top of the page is adequate to show that there is an issue with the page. Inline tags on every instance of "widely recognised" isn't necessary, and it makes the article messy and difficult to read.  Night w   18:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The main maintenance tag was originally added to the top of the page by itself. However, it was quickly removed by an administrator with the edit comment: "Please tag individual statements you object to with  . The general tag is not helpful in resolving problems."  I tend to agree with this argument.  Without inline tags it's not particularly clear what specifically the dispute is over.
 * I don't think a few inline tags are a big deal. If someone added an inline tag to all 193 instances of "Widely recognized ..." for each state, THAT would be WP:POINTy.  But a few inline tags to direct attention to the specific problems is appropriate in my opinion.  TDL (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One inline tag would be sufficient, but more than that becomes WP:POINTy. I still think that one overall blanket tag at the top is preferable to interfering with article readability.  The casual reader doesn't care what the dispute is about--he or she wants a readable article.  In the end, the maximum impact that dispute resolution will have is moving one or two entries from one list to the other.  That's all.  So can the pointy in-line tags and return to one overall tag.  --Taivo (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit that we discuss here concerns one tag on "internationally recognized" and one tag on "widely recognized". As the admin said - inline tags are better because they show where the problem is. Anyway, let's hope that we will resolve this sorting criteria issue soon. Alinor (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alinor and TDL's view that for certain users here "pointy" clearly translates as "anything I don't like/don't agree with". However, on the other hand, I also tend to think the tagging chosen here is a bit strong. For starters, the problem with the sorting and inclusion "criteria" (if one can really call them such) is a problem of verifiability, not of original research. Indeed, the latter label would be too kind and awards too much credit. The imposed solution ignores reliable sources on the topic and just takes at face value what laypeople believe to be the truth. I wouldn't mind removing the inline tags if the article template is changed to Refimprove or something similar. Ladril (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope that we will have some movement soon at Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-01-25/List_of_sovereign_states - this is a new MEDCAB, not the old MEDCOM, so we have to again state whether we agree on mediation or not. Alinor (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed tags (apparently "again.") From this discussion, there is a consensus for their removal (viz. the world v. Alinor.)

Further, there is no category at WP:WTW whereby these words, both accurate and defined in the text, qualify as weasel words. Alinor should cease the edit war and respect common English. — LlywelynII  13:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm. Apparently the mediation is moving forward and would understand if the tags were briefly included during the process. However, as I wrote on the page declining mediation:
 * "Decline. Per the discussion page, user:Alinor appears to be the sole user pushing this, ignoring a broad consensus, good faith, and plain English. Widely is not a weasel word under any category at WP:WTW: it implies more recognition than a rebel client state (for example, Turkish Cyprus or Russian Abkhazia.) If there is any issue at all between that category and nations like Palestine with broad but non-universal acceptance, the page can simply open a new section for the latter category below those of universally-recognized nations such as the USA or France. This is non- and wp:Pointy issue."
 * The French and German editions of this page, eg, have similar language (Pays généralement reconnus par la communauté internationale; Da es im Völkerrecht keine exakte und allgemein akzeptierte Definition eines unabhängigen Staates gibt, ist der Umfang dieser Liste umstritten) without such tags. I see no reason to reintroduce the tags pending the mediation's decision, and so leave the edit as is.


 * However, we could move forward towards a helpful consensus on the second point:


 * Do we need a new section between the universally-recognized states (USA, France) and non-widely-recognized states (Turkish Cyprus, Abkhazia) for nations which are merely widely-recognized (PRC, Palestine)? Further, should there be a section on currently-existing and formerly-widely-recognized states such as Taiwan?


 * Personally, my answer to both proposals is oppose, since they are not helpful distinctions and merely obfuscate the already clear content of the page. - LlywelynII 13:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ŀ
 * With all due respect Llywelyn, you've jumped in here without really understanding the situation. How can you claim that Alinor is the only one pushing for changes?  You can clearly see in the archived discussion here, and subsequent 6 pages, that the status quo is very contested by numerous users.
 * So if "Widely is not a weasel word under any category at WP:WTW" then is Palestine widely recognized? Is Kosovo widely recognized?  By your definition it is, but by the definition of many here they are not.  You can see that they are listed with the widely un-recognized states.  "Widely" may have a general definition, but certainly not a specific one which is what is required to decide where to list states on the on the bubble between the two sections.
 * As for your suggestion of a three-section setup, this has been discussed as a potential compromise, but it was rejected by some as not ideal, although it's something I'd support as a way of finding a solution.
 * I would ask you please to allow the mediation to go forward so we can have a constructive discussion on how to solve this. We've been discussing this here for over a year now and have had no success in finding a compromise.  Mediation is a good way to help us focus our discussion and keep things moving towards a solution.  You're welcome to join the discussion, but it's somewhat WP:UNCIVIL to suddenly show up and insist that there is no need for mediation when you haven't been involved in the extensive previous discussion.  I'm re-adding the tags while the discussion goes on.  TDL (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * LlywelynII, I don't know where from you have pulled the two bolded questions that you oppose, I don't know why you posted this in the section about the weasel tags, I don't remember you to have been involved in the 6 pages of debate on the subject of "sorting criteria" and in the other pages before splitting it in separate sub-page. Have you readed all this debate? Why do you think that this is some sort of Alinor-pushing? Because of this short section here? This is nothing - this section is minor thing and the debate is much bigger than "should we have weasel tags". If you take a look at the debate I linked to you will see the multiple problems, solutions proposed and users involved.
 * I will refrain from commenting on your initial statement about USA-France-Abkhazia-China-Palestine - please take a look at the debate and make a second statement about your opinion, then we can discuss in detail.
 * I assume good faith, but please keep in mind that we are waiting for mediation to start for months already. Right now there is a mediator willing to help us and it is very frustrating for a up to this moment uninvolved editor to hop straight in, add himself to the "involved" list and say "I decline mediation". Please take a look at the debate first and let's afterwards try to find some common ground. Alinor (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also Llywelynll, WP:WTW specifically mentions "widely" as an example of a weasel word under the heading "Unsupported attributions" and suggests that such words must be avoided. See WP:WEASEL. TDL (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Formatting a better-looking list
Quite apart from any discussion about the inclusion of weasel words in addition to a WP:OR tag, I would like to note that the current page simply looks bad. Is there any reason not to format the list in an aesthetically-pleasing fashion similar to the German or French versions?

The current mass of data concerning the specifics of their status could be moved to footnotes explaining their inclusion. - LlywelynII 14:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a plan to arranged into tables in a similar fashion, but it became ensnared in all the definition discussion. This and this are examples, although both are different to the current list so can't just be copied in. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

removing WP:POINTy tags (again)
One overall tag at the top of the page is quite enough. If the WP:OR tag isn't quite right, then find a better one. But multiple tags throughout the article on the same terms is quite unacceptable and is WP:POINTy, pure and simple. --Taivo (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This was discussed right above. If you want - remove the WP:OR tag, but the specific weasel tags have to remain - these were added after administrator requested it.
 * Also, refrain from removing them while the mediation is ongoing. Alinor (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No. What was discussed above was one or two specific tags in the lead--NOT a dozen tags scattered throughout the article.  I am reverting again.  Place one or two tags, but leave the rest gone.  Multiple tags for the very same wording is a clear violation of WP:POINT.  --Taivo (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Taivo, please don't remove the tags during the mediation. And please wait for more users to voice their opinion on this here if you so much insist on removing these. Alinor (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I see that the mediator suggested that we remove the tags during the "active discussion" phase. Please keep in mind, that if the mediation fails or is abandoned or such - ALL tags will be restored as they were in the status quo. We better solve this issue (sorting criteria, not tags) sooner than later - and tags bring the issue into attention of editors. Alinor (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, that will not be necessary, but if it is then you must remember that placing 10 tags on the same phrasing in an article is WP:POINTy editing and will be revised. --Taivo (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The status quo has these tags and there is no agreement to remove them. I written the comment above, so in the worst case scenario where these tags are needed again you don't try to obstruct the reverting of your temporary tag removal. Alinor (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Languages
Is the UNGEGN link dead? I can't access it. Is there a new list for the languages somewhere? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * . Sorry!  Night w   12:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
From Azerbaijan: From Cyprus: From Georgia: From Moldova:
 * "In Nagorno-Karabakh, a de facto state has been established..."
 * "The northeastern part of the island is the de facto state of Northern Cyprus."
 * "In Abkhazia and South Ossetia, de facto states inside the de jure territory of Georgia have been formed."
 * "Transnistria, the latter of which has established a de facto state..."


 * The Georgia entry is the only one that concerns me. We should change 'de jure' to 'inside the claimed territory of Georgia'. This will be more neutral. Thoughts? Outback the koala (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the de jure should be dropped from Georgia's entry. Outback's wording looks better to me.  TDL (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Alinor (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the "de jure" - "de facto" parallel be not drawn. While it's easy to understand the "de facto" version, it's not simple to define the "de jure" version. What law exactly are we talking about? International? The law of the state, whose irredentist entity split? The irredentist entity's laws itself? In my humble opinion, unless that law is made clear, the comparison de jure-de facto is impertinent. --Napoletanamente (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I have the same issue with these "de jure" and "de facto" qualifiers. When the MFA of XXX says "the de facto authorities of YYY, part of our de jure territory" it's clear that these de jure/de facto are according to the "law of XXX". But when to use these in bare without explanation according to which law is misleading. And specifying "according to law of XXX" can be accused of XXX-POV. Alinor (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Alinor. We don't want to look like we're on anyone's side. Outback the koala (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan and Kashmir
I recently rephrased the section on Pakistan's claim to Kashmir. It has always been my understanding that it regarded Kashmir as a disputed territory pending the outcome of a plebiscite. And it isn't officially claimed as part of Pakistan under the consititution (art. 1), but that same instrument does allow specifically for the accession of the Kashmiri territories (art. 257). Is there a better way to present this dispute than what we currently have, or did have before I changed it?  Night w   13:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked the constitution myself, but assuming you are correct in the interpretation you've done, then your revision is fine. Alinor (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

EU law wikilink
Night w, you removed the wikilink from EU law. You say "overlinking", but I don't find this linked anywhere else, not to mention that even if it is this will be a "later occurrence is a long way from the first." and is not WP:OVERLINK. Alinor (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Geez... this needs a discussion thread does it? WP:OVERLINK requires that links be "relevant and appropriate". It's undue to link to EU law in the Netherlands entry, but hey, that's just me. If you think many readers will want to go from sovereign states to an article on the law of the European Union, go ahead and put the link back in. This is a waste of talk page space.  Night w   12:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your restrictive interpretation of "relevant and appropriate" is amazing. Second only to your jealousness in removing wikilinks (I refer to another article you edited). Alinor (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA?
From Andorra: From Finland: From Greece: From Netherlands: From New Zealand:
 * "Andorra is a co-principality in which the office of head of state is jointly held ex officio by the French president and the bishop of the Roman Catholic diocese of Urgell, who himself is appointed by the Holy See."
 * "Åland was demilitarised by the Treaty of Paris in 1856, which was later affirmed by the League of Nations in 1921, and in a somewhat different context reaffirmed in the treaty on Finland's admission to the European Union in 1995."
 * "Mount Athos ... is jointly governed by the multi-national "Holy Community" on the mountain and the Civil Governor appointed by the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and spiritually comes under the direct jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate."
 * "Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten have their own parliaments and each are represented by a minister plenipotentiary in the Kingdom's Council of Ministers."
 * "Tokelau remains a dependent territory after several referendums."
 * Response point by point:
 * I think the note on shared head of state persona (n regards to France) should be kept (per commonwealth realm precedent), although the note could be cut down to the bare minimum.
 * I think the Aland note is important, as it has a quite unique constitutional status. It was required a special note in Finlands accession, and has a quite independent bent. Apparently they have the influence to on their own cause a Finnish rejection of EU treaties.
 * This one could go, just an autonomous area.
 * This is due to the ridiculous situation of having a separate Kingdom of the Netherlands article. I don't know how to deal with this, my gut feeling is to treat them similarly to dependencies, but I feel that may be rejected.
 * Trivia. Can go. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Andorra should be kept per Chip. Åland should be kept for sure per Chip. The Mount Athos mention should be kept, but we could cut it down/link away if need be, although I think its fine. The KoN entry really should stay the same if we take these out then we very well should take Scot or Eng from the UK entry; and we really don't want to go down that street. Outback the koala (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They're already listed as constituent countries; this is just some random extra information. Whereas the UK entry contains no information on separate structures or parliamentary representation, I'm actually suggesting that we match the UK entry's conciseness.  Night w   16:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you wanted to remove mention of them altogether. ok then. Outback the koala (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Outback the koala. Alinor (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with keeping the information on Åland and Andorra if there's a consensus for it. I'd prefer to see the Mount Athos note simplified into just being described (like the others) as an "autonomous area".  Night w   16:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mount Athos has a special status that is unique, so it requires more of an entry. But I agree it could be shortened. Outback the koala (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but be extra careful here - I don't see too much that can be removed. Alinor (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can the Netherlands be redone in the current Denmark form? It's much more analogous to Denmark than the UK. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree as far as the Netherlands is involved. The equal status of the countries (as the start sentence that is, see the preambule of the Charter), requires the formulation as it is here (kingdom consists of 4 countries as in the first sentece), as well as the separate kingdom article on wikipedia. The whole parliament part is an slightly unclear way indicating that their is some form of self governance for the three caribbean countries, but that the Kingdom mostly uses the laws and institutions of the country; that could certainly be improved.... L.tak (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Scotland and Wales have their own parliaments... I think we need to standardise descriptions of constituent countries by either removing the mention of separate parliaments and representation from the Netherlands entry, or adding it to the UK and Denmark entries. Personally, I don't see the need for it.  Night w   04:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal (sorry, didn't see it had been done already). However the current wording doesn't indicate the considerable autonomy of Aruba (while it formally has more than the others, but that's a different story). Couldn't think of an easy way to rephrase that without kicking the dissolution of the NL Antilles out, but if that can be accomodated somehow that would be great! L.tak (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The UK should not be analogous to Denmark and the Netherlands, the political situations are entirely different. The UK is a unitary state in which ancient states maintained a national identity, and express themselves as "countries". The Netherlands and Denmark have a main state, and the other countries mentioned have been granted a strange legal status that makes them part of the state without integrating them. The CIA even calls them dependencies. I don't think we should mention the dissolution of the Antilles, reduce to current information. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To refer to some of the 4 countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands as dependencies is just shear ignorance and we shouldn't present that or consider it. They are 4 countries forming one single sovereign state; to me this is similar to the UK situation, but yes I know that deeper they are completely different. As it is now, nothing should be changed or removed, we already cut down on the wordyness of it, and prev. agreed to leave a longer than usual description for up to two years because of the very recent massive constitutional changes that the Kingdom has undergone. I don't see why we should break from our previous decision. Outback the koala (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Outback the koala. It's fine already. The dissolution of Netherland Antilles has started, but the process will take up to 5 years - currently the BES islands are in the process of adopting mainland laws, some institutions changes, etc. Alinor (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)