![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
For info, there is an WP:RM at Talk:Republic of Macedonia, and an RFC being planned at WT:MOSMAC that would lead to a change in the consensus around how we should name that country.
To remind everyone, WP:MOSMAC is the binding and enforceable result of Arbcom proceedings, intended to resolve the spillover of the Macedonia naming dispute on Wikipedia. There is a 1RR restriction in place for all changes to the name of the Republic of Macedonia on all articles, that does not apply to editors restoring the WP:MOSMAC consensus.
It would appear that the discussion is headed toward a position where the article Republic of Macedonia will be renamed in anticipation of a change to WP:MOSMAC, but if this is the consensus it will only apply to that article. References to Macedonia on other articles (including this one) will continue to rely on WP:MOSMAC. Which means that, whatever the outcome of the RM, we are required not to adopt the new name until it is approved by the RFC. This will take at least 30 days from the day the RFC is opened. Kahastok talk 18:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
When it comes to North Macedonia should it be "Macedonia, North"? Just like North Korea is Korea, North. Just a thought. thanks earth1000
I recommend a new column for the language(s) the sovereign states' Constitution(s) are written in.-- Wyn.junior ( talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I suggest numbering this list of 206 states.-- Wyn.junior ( talk) 18:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
This is an article for Member states of the United Nations. This here is a list of sovereign states. There are great interruptions to this article because of the UN information. I am suggesting we delete the full United Nations columns from this article. The UN Status could be noted in the "Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty" column with the rest of the information. Then we could have a full list in alphabetic order without any interruptions-- Wyn.junior ( talk) 17:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
A world map is needed with each of the 206 sovereign states mapped out.-- Wyn.junior ( talk) 17:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Wiz9999 removed a note I had added concerning the fact that the International Court of Justice has issued an opinion to the effect that the United Kingdom’s administration of the territory is unlawful and that the United Kingdom’s separation of the territory from Mauritius was unlawful.
The list contains many notes to the effect that this or that state is not recognised by this or that state or by this or that many states etc. The most authoritive statement we have to go by as to the status of the territory in question is that the United Kingdom does not have legitimate sovereignty over it. That and many, many states have voted at the UN and made public statements to the effect that the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over this territory is not recognised and its administration of the territory is unlawful.
Should the list really make no mention of any of this? It seems rather inconsistent with the approach taken as regards the states listed to me. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 02:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Morrocco is quite on point: Let’s paraphrase your words. ”No, because it is a territorial dispute of a dependent territory, not of the governing state itself.“ Morrocco claims that Western Sahara is its territory. That claim is not accepted by all. A note explaining the Moroccan position is included. Why would the fact that the UK claims sovereignty over BIOT not be included in just the same way?
Again, in a similar vein to Pakistan but this time even closer to BIOT because Pakistan administers a territory that - according to what’s written - it doesn’t claim to have annexed - the UK has not annexed BIOT either. But the UK, like Pakistan, asserts that it has sovereignty over the disputed territory in question.
If there is indeed some principle of general application that you are defending in cutting out an explanation that the sovereignty of BIOT is disputed, I can’t even speculate on how the above statement is included.
Why’s this in there?
Do tell us why this is included? I think there is a lot of inconsistency. I also think there is a failure to identify what’s important and take care to ensure it is included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchmalawi ( talk • contribs) 00:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
the UK has not annexed BIOT eitherThis is an unsubstantiated statement. All evidence suggests that the UK actually HAS de facto control (i.e. annexed) the BIOT. If you have some kind of evidence to suggest that the UK is not in control of this territory, then I would kindly ask that you present it for us. Seeing as much of your argument rests on this unsubstantiated principal that the UK is not in control of BIOT but merely claims it (as the USA claims Bajo Nuevo Bank and Serranilla Bank), then this would be critical to a consideration your current argument. The comparisons to Kashmir in India/ Pakistan, Kosovo in Serbia/ Kosovo, and Crimea in Ukraine/ Russia are completely different as these territories are autonomous regions which are not only controlled by the latter state, but are wholly integrated into it. This is unlike the BIOT which is a dependent territory of the UK and thus not integrated within it. You have raised a good point about Bajo Nuevo Bank and Serranilla Bank being dependent territories of the USA and not actually a part of the state of the USA, neither are they controlled by it. Thus these two 'claims' do not really belong on this list, and I will remove them both now.
Wiz seemed to think I was suggesting that the UK does not administer BIOT. Of course, I never suggested any such thing. Pakistan claims sovereignty over the Kashmir territory mentioned. It also administers it. But it hasn’t integrated the territory into the Pakistani state. The UK claims sovereignty over BIOT. It also administers it. It hasn’t integrated BIOT into the UK. That’s the comparison. It hasn’t annexed it tot eh UK; it’s a territory the UK claims sovereignty over. But anyway, that’s rather of point. CMD:
Separate to my concerns about the inconsistency re BIOT, why is there no mention in the list of the disputed status of the regions of Antarctica? As an example, the UK’s purported sovereignty over part of Antarctica has very limited recognition. But it’s included as if it’s universally accepted. Seriously, is this list concerned with listing jurisdictions with sovereignty or not? What’s with all the multiple standards and approaches. It may not be easy, but it’s really not that complicated. (Separately, I sometimes struggle with editing on an iPad - don’t know where tildas are so forgive absence of signature please).— Preceding unsigned comment added by French Malawi ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I have restored the Abyei Area as a bulleted polity under both the Sudan and South Sudan entries in the list. It is a non-state polity created by international agreement, in which the parent state's sovereignty is limited by treaty, the 2004 Protocol on the Resolution of the Abyei Conflict. It thus falls in the same category as Hong Kong, Aland, Svalbard, ect. The territory dispute is irrelevant when considering its inclusion as a bulleted entry in the list. XavierGreen ( talk) 17:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Right, I am sick of this constant back and forth about this bullet point. It is expressly included here since it is listed on the
dependent territories page. This is consistent with the current list's criteria, which states: Dependent territories of another state, as well as areas that exhibit many characteristics of dependent territories according to the
dependent territory page
when describing what should be listed as a bullet point. It must be removed from that page before it would be permitted to be removed from this page. The criteria is clear on this. Those that wish this dependent territory delisted from this article please take your quarrel over there. -
Wiz9999 (
talk)
02:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not think that it is in conformity with NPOV to classify the State of Palestine with the 194 generally recognized sovereign states (i.e., the 193 UN member states plus Vatican City, whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone--crucially, not even by Italy, which is the only state that could claim Vatican City as part of its territory, and which recognized the Holy See's sovereignty over Vatican City in the Lateran Treaty of 1929). The State of Palestine applied for membership in the UN, and its application was rejected; the UN converted the PLO's status as an "observer entity" to an "observer state" status for the State of Palestine as a consolation prize. While over 100 UN members recognize the State of Palestine as a sovereign state, these are disproportionately developing countries, and it is not recognized by any of the G7 nations, nor, indeed, by most large, developed economies. Moreover, the State of Palestine does not have a unified government that rules over its two, noncontiguous, territories (Gaza and the West Bank).
I also fail to see how it complies with NPOV to treat the State of Palestine differently from the Republic of Kosovo, which has never been rejected for UN membership (nor applied for it) and whose sovereignty is recognized by over 100 UN members, including by all seven G7 countries (US, UK, Germany, Japan, France, Italy and Canada) plus Australia, Netherlands, Belgium, South Korea, Denmark, New Zealand, Austria and others, as well as by 23 out of the 28 members of the European Union. Palestine and Kosovo are very similar cases, and, if anything, Kosovo has a better claim to general international recognition than Palestine. I recommend that both countries be treated similarly, as .
I believe that it is an exercise in POV to avert one's eyes from the facts and pretend that the State of Palestine (or the Republic of Kosovo, for that matter) is a generally recognized sovereign state. Let's classify it as what it is: a de facto sovereign state with substantial, but not general, international recognition. This description applies not only to Palestine and Kosovo, but also to Taiwan and Western Sahara, but would exclude de facto states with little or no international recognition such as Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Somaliland, etc. The recognition status of such de facto states is nuanced, and their classification should be as well.
I'm pinging @ User:Wiz9999 and @ User:Chipmunkdavis, but welcome comments from all interested editors.
AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 19:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The question we have to ask is, what change in the criteria dividing the two lists do you propose?
At present, the top part of the list presents UN member and observer states (the observers being Palestine and the Vatican), the bottom half presents entities that meet the selection criteria for the list that are not UN member or observer states.
If you wish to change the split, you will need to provide a better criterion to split the list with. That criterion will have to be simple to understand and objectively justifiable (we can't just pretend that Palestine is not a UN observer or that Kosovo is) without original research, while achieving the aim of of the split - which is to preserve the neutrality of the list by splitting off the generally-unrecognised entities from the generally recognised states. The current split achieves all this.
And when doing this, bear in mind that there are pages and pages and pages of archives discussing this precise point in minute detail, and that for those of us who participated in that discussion, it is likely that persuasive new argument will be required before we unpick the compromise that was reached. Kahastok talk 21:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The UN "didn't vote upon" Palestine's application for membership when statements by members of the Security Council made clear that approval would not be granted, so Palestine's supporters moved to table the vote; you can boast that "it wasn't formally rejected" if you wish, but the implication was clear. And if being an observer state was such a big deal, why didn't Palestine request to be made an observer state?
I never said that the State of Palestine aspires to have control over its claimed territory in the West Bank and Gaza; I said that it aspires to be recognized as a sovereign state, but that it hasn't reached that goal yet. Israel has permitted the State of Palestine to have control over the West Bank and Gaza (except when it doesn't), and control by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, respectively, is consistent with that of other de facto states.
As for Taiwan, you should know better than to take the number of countries that officially have diplomatic relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan) as the number that recognizes its sovereignty. Given that the Republic of China claims that recognition of its sovereignty implies recognition that the government of the Republic of China is the rightful government of all of China (including the mainland), and that the People's Republic of China has a firm policy of withdrawing diplomatic relations from any state that officially recognizes the Republic of China's sovereignty, it should not surprise anyone that only a few countries have decided to spurn the People's Republic of China and officially recognize the Republic of China. But far more countries recognize Taiwan on a de facto basis and maintain informal governmental relations with its government. In fact, among the countries listed in the "Foreign relations of Taiwan" Wikipedia article as having "non-diplomatic, unofficial governmental relations" with the Republic of China are 14 of the 15 countries with the highest GDP (all but, you guessed it, the People's Republic of China). That's pretty substantial recognition of Taiwan's status as a sovereign state, although it obviously falls far short of general international recognition (even further away than are Kosovo and Palestine). Here's the pertinent section of the "Foreign relations of Taiwan" Wikipedia article:
"Non-diplomatic representation See also: Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office
The ROC has non-diplomatic, unofficial governmental relations with the European Union and at least 47 states, recognising the PRC, that maintain "Economic, Trade and/or Cultural" (or similar) offices in Taiwan. These relations are not inter-governmental nor are they officially diplomatic or political. However, they have many of the functions usually assigned to actual embassies, including the processing of visas, cultural exchanges and to some extent, unofficial diplomatic and governmental exchanges.
For example, the American Institute in Taiwan functions as the United States' de facto embassy with the chairman and staff acting as unofficial government consulate officers who nevertheless perform duties that official embassies would undertake. Ireland does not maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan and the Taipei Representative Office in Dublin has no diplomatic or political status, referring to UN Resolution 2758.[60]
Oceania (3 states)
Australia New Zealand Papua New Guinea
Asia (12 states and 2 territories)
Brunei Hong Kong India Indonesia Japan South Korea Macau Malaysia Mongolia Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam
Middle East (5 states)
Israel Jordan Oman Saudi Arabia Turkey
Africa (2 states)
Nigeria[61] South Africa
Europe (18 states)
Austria Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Hungary Italy Latvia Luxembourg Netherlands Poland Russia Slovakia Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom
North America (3 states)
Canada Mexico United States
South America (4 states)
Argentina Brazil Chile Peru
AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 18:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
“ | I never said that the State of Palestine aspires to have control over its claimed territory in the West Bank and Gaza; I said that it aspires to be recognized as a sovereign state, but that it hasn't reached that goal yet. | ” |
The "sovereignty dispute" column's inclusions criterion is:
This column indicates whether or not a state is the subject of a major sovereignty dispute. Only states whose entire sovereignty is disputed by another state are listed.
Given that, the IP making this edit needs to provide some evidence that the status of the Cook Islands and Niue is actively disputed by some other state.
To be clear, this is not the same as their not being recognised as sovereign states. There are numerous examples internationally of states that are not formally recognised without the existence of any dispute, and these are not generally listed here because this column lists sovereignty disputes, not cases of lack of recognition.
(What you'll actually find is that most of the work accepts that the Cook Islands and Niue are whatever they say they are and that whether that amounts to formal sovereignty or something else is up to them.) Kahastok talk 09:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Since they're Dependent territories, therefore, They're not States. So Yes, they have no Sovereignty. 2607:FEA8:F420:3DD1:6166:9E39:EDC5:98F9 ( talk) 22:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Bringing a conversation in a few edit summaries here. Many items have been added to the extent that do not fall within the previously discussed inclusion criteria. The criteria, listed on the page, is:
Remaining additions that fall outside these, and which are inconsistently applied for some countries but not others, include:
Due to their lack of relation to the points mentioned, and their arbitrary application to only one country each, I don't think this information belongs here. They fall outside the scope of the article, and should be removed.
There are other current inclusions which may be worth discussing:
Thoughts on all these matters, or others, are welcome. CMD ( talk) 04:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Specifics on how Turkey deals with the Cypriot Government, which is not included for other disputed states,- I will save this one for later...
The official designation of Italy's autonomous regions, something not included for other autonomous areas, (aside from perhaps Chile, which may also need looking into,)- The official terms used by these states for internal purposes is relevant when discussing potentially confusing dependent territories. It can lead to confusion in understanding, as is evident in my comments about the next two statements below.
The inclusion of Sevastopol as a special city of Ukraine, while no other cities are mentioned outside of federative structures and even Ukraine's other special status city isn't included, and- The term " special status city" is an internal designation of Ukraine, it does not relate to a city level division, but a federal level division. The federal " City of Sevastopol" is not a part of the rest of the " Autonomous Republic of Crimea", they are two separate first level administrative divisions. When Russia annexed Crimea (the peninsula) from Ukraine, both the federal units of the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the "City of Sevastopol" were annexed, not just the republic of crimea.
The inclusion of Palmrya Atoll, despite that being a full part of the United States.- Palmyra Atoll is most certainly NOT a full part of the United States. It may be constitutionally linked to it (having the official status of an 'Incorporated Unorganised' territory), which stands in contrast to most of the other uninhabited USA islands (which have a status of an 'Unincorporated Unorganised' territory) which are not directly constitutionally linked to the USA. However, the distinction between these terms/concepts is unique to the USA, and does not really have a bearing on the concept of a 'dependent territory'. Besides, the territory in question (Palmyra Atoll) is still listed on the United States Minor Outlying Islands list and it is included on the Dependent territory#United States list, which is directly a part of this article's criteria for inclusion as a bullet point sub-entry, as noted in the last lines of List of sovereign states#Criteria for inclusion. Generally, what is considered to be a part of the USA's internal federal structure is only the 50 states, and the federal District of Columbia, Palmyra Atoll is a part of neither of these.
I'm familiar with Macedonia, but this has no bearing on the term the Turkish Government designates the Cypriot Government. There is no need to describe the situation at all, let alone consider the wording of the matter.- It was meant as an example as to why a description of the terms matter. Regardless, I feel there is most definitely a need to explain to the reader why Turkey does not recognise Cyprus overall. The reader will not necessarily be aware of the Cyprus dispute, and the criteria listed in note 'd.' does specify that
The extent to which a state's sovereignty is recognised internationallyis important. Providing this clarification to the reader (that this lack of recognition is BECAUSE of the Cyprus dispute) is really not detracting from the statement about lack of recognition by Turkey. Also, if you truly feel that no clarification is needed regarding the situation then why did you not remove all the information past "Cyprus is not recognised by Turkey"? In your original edit you removed the highly relevant link to the Cyprus dispute, but left the information about recognition of Northern Cyprus. To me that is double standards if you are claiming that "there is no need to describe the situation at all", to which I disagree anyway. With regards to the wording, I still feel it is relevant, as it is not the only place on the list that describes 'unique' terms/nomenclature (see China, Denmark, Israel, or the Netherlands as I stated before and also Russia and ROC/Taiwan).
Italy has no dependent territories to be potentially confused about. And again, this inclusion is inconsistent.- No it doesn't. However, Italy is not the only places that describes internally unique terms (see China, Denmark, Israel, the Netherlands, Russia, the USA, etc.)
I'm aware of that the special status city is a Ukrainian designation, I mentioned this in my comment and even pointed out there was one other. It is not a federal division, as Ukraine is not a federation. I'm also familiar with the Russian annexation of Sevastopol, but that has no bearing on the point, unless you feel that annexed territories should be included in this article, which I would disagree with.- I never said that annexed territories should be included in this list, I simply feel it is disingenuous to imply Russia's annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea without having annexed Sevastopol as well (you are right about my usage of "federal division" here being incorrect earlier, since what I meant was "first level administrative division" in lieu of that term). Honestly, I feel we shouldn't mention the annexation of either of these two entities without describing the situation with Donetsk and Luhansk as well, as Crimea is just a part of this wider overall russophone conflict with Russia. I actually believe, upon further thought over this entry, that it should be re-worded to better describe the fact that this is an Autonomous region of Ukraine which is a separate concept to the dispute issues.
Palmyra atoll is part of the United States. It is, as you note, incorporated. If as you claim incorporation "does not really have a bearing on the concept of a dependent territory", then what to you does? It underlies the very concept.- Inclusion on this list ( Dependent territory) is what I constitute a 'dependent territory' for the purposes of this article, as that is what is specified by the criteria. Entries on that list must satisfy the following statement:
A dependent territory, dependent area or dependency is a territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a sovereign state yet remains politically outside the controlling state's integral area.of which Palmyra Atoll does (as it is not a part of the 50 states, nor the D.C.), thus it is included on that list, hence it is included on this list. If you really wish for it to be removed from this list, then I would suggest you go and argue for its removal from that list instead, as these bullet point entries in this list are based on the dependent territory list/article. "Incorporated" from a US internal legal concept is different from actual incorporation of a state by another state as a concept of international politics (See Incorporated town and Unincorporated area#United States, and yes I am aware that we are not discussing towns here but the idea of US legal incorporation verses unincorporation here is equivalent between small towns as it is for territories) For example, on the Russian Annexation of Crimea article, the following statement is found in the lead:
Russia formally incorporated Crimea as two federal subjects of the Russian Federation with effect from 18 March 2014.Such usage can also be found reflected in sources [2] - Wiz9999 ( talk) 06:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Dependent territories of another state, as well as areas that exhibit many characteristics of dependent territories according to the dependent territory page. That is why this article is based on the dependent territory article. It is blatantly stated in the criteria. This source [3] explains why an "insular area" (of which Palmyra Atoll is a part) is not a part of the US states nor is it a part of any federal district, and that it is just a territory. But you really should take your argument about this entity at this point to the dependent territory page instead, as I will not consider the removal of Palmyra Atoll from this article until it is removed from there, due to the aforementioned criteria. - Wiz9999 ( talk) 18:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
What reason is there to include dependencies that in an article about sovereign states? In particular the U.S. unincorporated territories (except American Samoa) have no legal personalities. (That is, they cannot enter into contracts or have standing in courts.) TFD ( talk) 16:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Some sources list sovereign states only and some also list dependent states too. The problem though is that when it is left to editors or to experts for that matter to determine what is a sovereign state, there will be disagreement. Taiwan for example is a province of China but acts as a sovereign state. Niue and the Cook Islands are associated states but New Zealand considers them to be dependencies. Either we have an objective standard for inclusion in the list, or we can argue over these exceptional cases ad infinitum. TFD ( talk) 18:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Vatican? The only thing I can think of for them is that their not a full UN Member. 2607:FEA8:F420:3DD1:6166:9E39:EDC5:98F9 ( talk) 22:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic have declared themselves independent, control certain territories (and probably will continue to do so as long as Russia supports them), and have government entities working in their controlled territory. I don't see much difference between these two and Somaliland. Shall we include them into the list (in the section "other states"), what do you think? -- Tscherpownik ( talk) 22:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I have added Taiwan into the generally recognized list again. While I know there are CCP sympathizers on this site, there is no good reason Taiwan should not be included while Palestine is. Taiwan is recognized by multiple UN states, goes above and beyond the requirements of the Montevideo Convention, and is a UN observer state, which is what the list requires. In fact, Taiwan is more sovereign than Palestine, as Taiwan is fully capable of self-defense and has a functioning economy, while Palestine is defenseless and is almost entirely dependent on foreign aid. Please stop changing it back unless you can give a valid reason Palestine is in there. -- KanzazKyote ( talk) 03:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of counties and cities. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesome Hwyh 23:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Recently, there was an AFD whose particular discussion I closed as no consensus. In that discussion, there seemed to be a consensus that there was a need to take a closer look at the general list series involving sovereign states by decade. I am opening up this RFC in the hopes that this might be a place to further that discussion. Best, bibliomaniac 1 5 01:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Ans: I am afraid you have misunderstood the system of this list regarding the entries of the type "X → Y". They have nothing to do with "common name → formal name". They are meant for easy navigation if someone looks for a country under another name than the one used in the list, or if someone is looking in the wrong list. If someone looks for "North Korea", they find the entry "North Korea → Korea, North", where "Korea, North" is clickable, and if you click on it, you come to the entry for the country. If someone looks for "Artsakh" in the main list, they find the entry "Artsakh → Artsakh", where the second "Artsakh" is clickable and brings you to the entry for Artsakh in the "Other states" list. The same happens if you are looking for "Nagorno-Karabakh". You then find "Nagorno-Karabakh → Artsakh" and can click to the entry for "Artsakh". The way you have changed it, if you look for "Taiwan" in the main list, you find "Taiwan → Republic of China", indicating that you should look for "Republic of China" in the list, not clickable. But "Republic in China" is not in the list, and what you actually are looking for, is found under "Taiwan" in the "Other states" list. Also the entry you removed, was a similarly useful navigation tool. Please self revert. -- T*U ( talk) 13:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The Southern Transitional Council has declared self-governance on 26 April 2020. In Aden, the movement's attempt was successful, as it occupied all governmental institutions. How to categorize this? Is it a de facto government like in Somaliland even if maybe too soon to tell? Wykx ( talk) 19:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether Wa State would count as a sovereign state, since they have declared independence from Myanmar and administer themselves? Unown Uzer717 ( talk) 07:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The Judea and Samaria Area, the Isreali administration in the West Bank, should be added as an bulleted entity to the list under Israel. It is an Israeli administrative division that is not an integral part of of Israel, it thus is similar in many respects to the Pakistani administered territories of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan and is likewise akin to a territory or dependency and should be treated as such in the article. XavierGreen ( talk) 01:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The table includes bullets representing entities which are either not sovereign states or have a close association to another sovereign state. It also includes subnational areas where the sovereignty of the titular state is limited by an international agreement. Taken together, these include:
- States in a free association relationship to another state
- Two entities controlled by Pakistan which are neither sovereign states, dependent territories, or part of another state: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan
- Dependent territories of another state, as well as areas that exhibit many characteristics of dependent territories according to the dependent territory page
- Subnational entities created by international agreements
No offence to @ Yash400: but the new map that has been added to the article is not the best map. I know it has been sourced directly from the UN, but there are weird issues and choices that the UN made in drawing it up. The map indicates the Pakistan/ India/ China border in Kashmir as being disputed, a note about the unique situation is made as well. Fair Enough. However, they then show the entire Sudan/ South Sudan border as "not yet been determined". Only portions of this border are in dispute (around the Abyei area and the Radom National Park) with the rest of it being defined. A text note is made for the Sudan/South Sudan section as well. However, the border dispute between Egypt and Sudan is indicated and is not mentioned in text, as is an undefined section of border between Ethiopia and Somalia. The Koreas are shown as having a disputed border (again, fair enough), but also no mention is made of the circumstances in the text area. Conversely, the Falkland Islands are indicated with a double **, but are solely indicated on the map with text as being in a disputed situation. Palestine is outlined but not labelled, but no other limited recognition state is shown (Ok, fair point it is a UN observer, but the Holy See does have its name on the map too). In addition to all of this, font sizes are inconsistent and change size within some official state names (e.g. the Koreas and Laos) but not in others (e.g. DR Congo and Moldova). The map indicates most dependent territories, but excludes some, particularly the Heard and McDonald Islands and Kerguelen which are completely covered by the massive block of text. Meanwhile some non-dependent territories are listed (e.g. Tromelin, Cargados Carajos Shoals, and Marquesas) despite being subunits of a territorial division and/or mostly uninhabited. All these are very inconsistent practices, and I am not sure what the original map makers were thinking when drawing up the map other than to highlight certain specific disputes from their POV. – Wiz9999 ( talk) 13:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
If we arrange the list of countries by alphabetical order, considering we put The Bahamas under B and The Gambia under G, shouldn't we put El Salvador (literally means The Salvador) under S? 144.130.162.86 ( talk) 09:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The current sections of the list make absolutely no sense, since redirects of non-member states are included in the member's section of the list. The list should either be sectioned by member status or sorted strictly in alphabetical order. Which one should it be? -- MB-one ( talk) 10:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
A couple editors seem insistent on the idea that Taiwan claims China as part of territory, based solely on statements former Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou, of the no-longer-in-power Kuomintang party, made over a decade ago. If a former US president declared that Canada should be part of the US, that wouldn't make it the United States' official position. Without better evidence or a fuller discussion, this doesn't belong here. 98.7.83.199 ( talk) 00:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I think we should add the Order of Malta because it is technically a sovereign state, however, I think we should add it in a different category (not as Sovereign State or Other State), it should be called something like "Other Recognized Sovereign Entities". User: Rodrigo B D —Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is not included, as despite being a sovereign entity it lacks territory and does not claim statehood. FDW777 ( talk) 13:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that is true but it is also a UN observer state right? User: Rodrigo B D —Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I think the "Other States" Heading is too broad because someone might see the other states heading and they might think Azawad and Dar'El'Kuti should also be there. I think we should change it to Partially recognized and Unrecognized States. User: Rodrigo B D —Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it better excludes them because they are proto-states, and it could be confused with Other States. However, I do understand perfectly what you mean by not changing the title User: Rodrigo B D —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Why don't we add proto-states to the "other States" part? These should include Donetsk, Luhansk, and Dar El Kuti (and maybe Kurdistan too) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo B D ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone add Donetsk and Lugansk? They fall under the same criteria as Pridnestrovie. 'Doomer1557' ( talk) 15:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we should add them to the list because there is one major difference between them which is that Pridnestrovie holds all of its territories, and the DPR and LPR don't, they only hold a portion of what is left of their original territorial claims. However, there is one more thing that prevents them from entering the list, the fact that they are still at war with Ukraine. User: Rodrigo B D —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to make a case for adding the Principality of Sealand to the list of "other states." Before you write off my proposal because of it's current status as a "micronation", I'd ask that you read what I've wrote and take it into consideration. Thank you.
I'd like to start of by saying that I'm not trying to clear a path for micronations to be included. They should stay in a separate article. Rather, I believe that I can make a circumstantial case for it's inclusion. Right now in the article, we have criteria for states that must be met for inclusion into the list. What I'm proposing is the inclusion of the Principality of Sealand into the "Other states" list as a Non-Member, undisputed territory.
To start, I will go over each piece of criteria in detail to explain the reason that Sealand meats each one. The criteria that a sate must satisfy is either:
This criteria has been evaluated and discussed by many users and by common consensus, is what Wikipedia uses. For Sealand to satisfy the criteria for the first one, it has to: 1) consider themselves sovereign and; 2) Sealand must also satisfy the declarative theory. Sealand satisfies the first one because they consider themselves as sovereign as stated no and at numerous point throughout it's history. Sealand also satisfies the declarative theory. It is the only "micronation" to complete this "checklist." No other has or probably ever will come anywhere even close. The declarative theory is made up of four criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. I'll go over each one in more detail below.
1) a defined territory. Sealand has a defined territory that consists of Fort Roughs. It's an island (the way in which it was constructed and "installed" means it fits the definition of artificial island, not a platform.) that has an area of .004 square km. The United Nations convention of the law of the sea (UNCLOS) is brought up at times in this instance because the island is artificial. I must point out that Sealand was founded in 1967 and that UNCLOS was effective starting in 1994. A law written in the future doesn't retroactively remove Sovereignty, it was in place and established decades before UNCLOS was drafted. Sealand's land, at the time of founding, was outside the UK's territorial waters. This claim was challenged and British courts ruled that the United Kingdom does not claim ownership or jurisdiction of Sealand. Effectively, this means that the land was uncontested by any existing government. The UK did extend it's territorial waters to 12 nm in 1987, but this was both after the ruling (that British sovereignty didn't apply on the island) and after the founding of Sealand. This means that Sealand is enclaved by the UK's waters, but isn't part of the UK because the UK doesn't claim or apply it's own sovereignty to the island. Think of it like a normal maritime border where Sealand is surrounded by but not a part of the UK's waters.
2) a permanent population. This one won't be as long, there is always people living on Sealand and there is no minimum for people. While it is an abnormally low count of people, so are states like that Vatican, and again, there is no minimum.
3) a government. Sealand has a government structured as a principality and has a formal constitution to govern the state.
4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. This one is the hardest for any new state to fulfill. But Sealand has demonstrated it's capacity to enter into relations with other states on many occasions. The most notable being when it hosted a German diplomat for diplomatic purposes between Germany and the Principality. This unequivocally shows the Sealand satisfies this final requirement for inclusion into this article.
Irregardless of Sealand's status, for the last 53 years it has been de facto sovereign from any other government. Something that can't be said about any other "micronational" entity. This is why I believe it should no longer be classified as a micronation. I know that for many of you reading this, that word has been stuck in your mind, that it's a micronation and the nothing else matters, but the circumstances of Sealand are far different then any other declared entity. What would we classify it as? Well, we have the criteria right here in the list. In the list of "other states" under UN recognized states, we have two column, the first one being UN membership with three different options already used for states in that list. They are: No membership, special UN member, and former UN member. Sealand fits into the "No membership" status. The second column is the sovereignty dispute one. In accordance with the UK's ruling on no jurisdiction, the column would be "None" (Similar to Somaliland's status in the table). The table and legend already have the criteria needed for inclusion because it's been de facto sovereign for over 50 years. Even if it doesn't get recognition by other states, it's still by virtue of fact sovereign.
To wrap thing up, Sealand should no longer be considered a Micronation and instead be reclassified as sovereign state. in fact, it should never have been classified as a micronation because it has demonstrated sovereignty for over 50 years, really before the term micronation was used. It is the only one that has fulfilled all of the necessary criteria to become a state, no other one has ever come anywhere close. It has been de facto independent for over 50 years, stood up to early challenges of sovereignty and clearly meets all of the necessary criteria for inclusion on this list. In the meantime, I have already prepared it's entry into the list of "other states" and I am ready to implement it upon the consensus.
Thank you for reading this and I hope you can consider it's inclusion based on what I have written here over the last few days! Jrcraft Yt ( talk) 06:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a list of sovereign states, not a list of abandoned structures out at sea where some schmuck decided to camp out and pretend to be the president of his own country. AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 04:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Why is Taiwan listed three times (twice in the "UN member states and observer states" group under "China, Republic of" and "Taiwan", even though Taiwan is not that, and again (correctly) in the "other states" group)? I was going to just boldly remove the duplicates until I noticed Artsakh has the same thing going on. Can someone please clean this page up? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Jjkkk Jim Qasme ( talk) 22:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Countires of the world. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 28#Countires of the world until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
JsfasdF252 (
talk)
18:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the map added to this article. We had a discussion on a different map a few months ago.
The biggest issue here is that the map is sourced from the CIA World Factbook and therefore reflects the POV of the United States government. Patently this is not a neutral POV. For example, it treats Kosovo as independent. It ignores other states from the second part of the list, and it also outlines the West Bank and Gaza but without labelling them. Some disputed borders are included (e.g. in Kashmir), some not (e.g. in Crimea).
The image summary at Commons has a tag on it that says, This image is expected to always be the most recent one. Feel free to update it when needed.
It seems reasonable to assume that it will evolve over time. Most obviously, the next edition is likely to reflect the new US stance on Western Sahara - a position that is not widely held internationally.
Overall, I view this in the same way as I view all the other proposals to add information that goes beyond the core purpose of the list. Which is, that it's almost certainly going to be more trouble than it's worth. Kahastok talk 11:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I just changed the given number for fully recognized nations from 190 to 188, and here is the edit summary I put: "It says that there are 190 nations ith no sovereignty dispute, however, I belive that it is only 188, 187 members (as it says 6 partially unrecognized members) plus the Vatican, an observer, with the other observer being Palestine is partially unrecognized, and then the 9 other nonmembers or observers remains unchanged"
I belive this mistake was made due to having Cook Islands and Niue also say that there is no sovereignty dispute. 98.114.153.7 ( talk) 22:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
The "Criteria for inclusion" section of the article currently includes the following paragraph:
However, I do not believe that it is correct that there are 203 states that are recognized *as sovereign states* by at least one UN member state. All 193 UN member states, Vatican City, Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and the SADR (Western Sahara) are recognized as sovereign states by a considerable number of states, which takes us to 198. Then there are two de-facto sovereign states within Georgian territory that are recognized as sovereign by Russia and a few other UN members: Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which takes us to 200. And then there is Northern Cyprus, a de-facto sovereign state recognized as sovereign only by Turkey, which takes us to 201. That means that, when the article claims that "203 states are recognized by at least one UN member," it is deeming the Cook Islands and Niue--free associated states within the Realm of New Zealand--as being "recognized" as sovereign by at least one UN member. I would posit that, while it certainly is true that the Cook Islands and Niue maintain diplomatic relations with quite a few states, it is done within the parameters permitted by New Zealand, and none of those UN member states that maintain diplomatic relations with the Cook Islands and Niue purport to be recognizing them as separate sovereign states from New Zealand.
While the Cook Islands and Niue are bound by their respective agreements with New Zealand, they carry themselves as if they were sovereign states and are able to enter into "relations" with other sovereign states, so they could be deemed to satisfy the declarative theory of statehood.
I propose that the paragraph be rewritten to read:
What do other editors think? AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 02:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it has to do with "full treaty making capacity" (see List of treaties by number of parties). "The maximum number of state ratifications that a multilateral treaty can have is usually 197; this total consists of all 193 UN member states; both UN observers, the Holy See and State of Palestine; and the Cook Islands and Niue." Selfstudier ( talk) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
This is not to argue with anybody, but here is one more reliable source supporting their inclusion: "In addition to receiving significant amounts of financial assistance, as well as delegating authority in such areas as monetary policy or defense to their former metropolitan power, the Cook Islanders and Niueans have remained New Zealand citizens, and their territories have remained treated as part of New Zealand for the purpose of obtaining its citizenship. The existence of such arrangements has been a source of confusion. In particular, it has raised the question of the compatibility of free association and shared citizenship with sovereign statehood. This chapter addresses this question and argues that despite their miniscule size and close association with New Zealand, both the Cook Islands and Niue can and should be seen as sovereign states." [15] Ladril ( talk) 22:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
By this source Holy See is the name of the sovereign state and Vatican City is its capital. Delasse ( talk) 11:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe that North and South Korea should be alphabetized standardly (in other words, North Korea by "N", South Korea by "S", rather than both by "K"). This is the order all other "North" and "South" countries take ( North Macedonia, South Africa, South Sudan, South Ossetia). I also think sorting the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of the Congo (DRC by "D" and RotC by "R", rather than both by "C") would be useful. (I initially raised this point at Template talk:Asia topic, where I got some support but was advised to take it here.) AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 04:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Islamic emirate of Afghanistan is the present name for the government of the disputed Afghanistan after the recent power change. It's recognition is partial in global community. If the government in exile Islamic republic of Afghanistan is meant then, does it have enough criterion to be called sovereign state? SrihariPKurudi ( talk) 19:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
According to ISO 3166-1, Palestine, the Cook Islands and Niue are not independent countries. From my understanding, the Cook Islands and Niue are constituent states of New Zealand, they are not fully independent and their citizens are actually New Zealand citizens. Although they enjoyed far more autonomy than other ordinary dependent territories and can cast votes independently within the United Nations System just like any other country, they are not technically fully sovereign states. As for Palestine, it is a sovereign political entity which has limited control over their claimed territory. For comparison, it is an entity sitting somewhere between the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (a sovereign entity with no control over any territory) and the Holy See (a sovereign entity with absolute control over a defined territory which makes it a fully sovereign state).
In my point of view, only political entities which tick all the boxes could attain the status of a sovereign state and we should place all three of the above-mentioned entities under the "Other states" section, together with those partially recognized states. 2001:8003:9008:1301:F0D6:2B9B:76:77AE ( talk) 08:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Observer states should not be grouped together with UN member states, instead they should be included in other states. Palestine is much closer in sovereignty status to Kosovo than to a UN member state. -- Somerby ( talk) 10:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
This edit altered long standing text "Israel exerts strong control over the territory" to "Israel controls to some degree.." I amended the dilution to "Israel occupies..", which is actually the clearest explanation of the degree of control. This has been reverted here with edit summary "not everyone agrees that Gaza is occupied (rather than put under siege/blockade)" but the lead for Gaza states "Despite the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the United Nations, international human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators consider the territory to be still occupied by Israel" so this reason for reverting is incorrect. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I suggest this solution to our Afghanistan problem:
I have some comments to make.
I actually think it is probably a violation of WP:WEIGHT for us to accept the Taliban flag and nomenclature for Afghanistan, given that they are not recognised as legitimate internationally. However, the issues at stake are exactly the same as at Afghanistan, and I see no value in rediscussing the point at every article independently.
I would note that the argument that the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is still the UN member is irrelevant to the choice of name and flag because this is not Member states of the United Nations.
It seems to me that the presence or absence of a government in exile is not the relevant point, it is whether an alternative government is recognised. In this case, it is not obvious that the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan still exists even as a government-in-exile. But, whether it exists or not, it is recognised by countries throughout the world and is represented at the UN, so it needs to be mentioned.
I will WP:BOLDly implement this suggestion in the article, but I have no doubt that people will continue to change it. I think changes need to be discussed here, rather than just with drive-by edits. I note that it is not immediately obvious what the current standing consensus is, since the article has not really been stable since the Fall of Kabul. But I suspect that it still refers to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Kahastok talk 11:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Svito3. If you revert per WP:BRD then you need to join the discussion. If you are not prepared to discuss your objection, then don't revert.
The claim in this edit summary, "we specificially list states as recognized by UN: note is sufficent" is factually wrong.
First, the UN does not recognise states at all. It recognises governments of states that have been accepted for membership.
Second, no part of our inclusion criteria or other descriptions of this list requires that we use the flag and name preferred by the current UN delegation. There are several instances where we differ from the UN in this area. And that's before we start discussing the 13 entities listed here that are not UN member states, and 11 that are also not UN observer states.
If you're looking for the list of UN member states, you can find it at member states of the United Nations.
Because of this, using the old flag and name with a footnote, The United Nations currently recognizes the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as the government of Afghanistan instead of the de facto ruling government is unacceptable to me. The fact that the UN recognises the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan does not explain why we would list it here, when even our own article Afghanistan uses the Taliban name and flag. Kahastok talk 16:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Where obviously "insert text here" is replaced with an appropriate and sourced description for the situation, and the header footnotes are not removed. |
Gonna be WP:BOLD and acknowledge the status of the IEA in the notes column; i think this is the best option as the IRA is still recognized by the UN and the table does mention UN member states, but it is critical for accuracy's sake that the IEA is acknowledged. WittyWidi ( talk) 21:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
It is written that Taiwan is an observer in World Health Organization under the name "Chinese Taipei". But in reality the government of Taiwan was only allowed to participate as an observer from 2009 to 2016, but has not been invited again since: Timsit, Anabel; Hui, Mary (16 May 2020). "Taiwan's status could disrupt the most important global health meeting of this pandemic". Quartz. Archived from the original on 6 June 2020. Retrieved 6 June 2020.. Thus if there is no objection I will remove this claim from the article. -- Somerby ( talk) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
it's the more common name for the region/nation/whatever you call it — Preceding unsigned comment added by H. Iristine ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Unless we're declaring that the UN is the sole decider of the content of this article? The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is a fact, where's the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan no longer exists. We should be reflecting what is, not what the UN wants. GoodDay ( talk) 21:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 13:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
List of sovereign states → List of countries – The definitions of country, nation and state are often controversial, somehow arbitrary, but not all countries are sovereign states (and viceversa). The current naming convention is countries (e.g. Lists of countries, Category:Lists of countries, Lists of countries and territories), which I consider to be more appropriate. Therefore, in accordance with the applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topics, I propose to rename this page List of countries, which is currently a redirect. Thanks in advance, Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 08:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
These two entities have been brought up ad nauseam, but especially given recent developments, I figure they deserve a closer look. There's two things I think are worth examining:
1: The prospect of Russian recognition. The Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR) are currently only recognized by each other (which is irrelevant) and by South Ossetia, itself not recognized by the UN or most nations. But recently, Russia's legislature passed a law that recognizes Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states. The law has not taken effect yet, since President Vladimir Putin has yet to sign or veto the law. But in the very possible scenario that the law is signed (or the legislature overrides a Putin veto), would that not be sufficient to consider adding both entities to the list of non-UN states? They'd be the only entities recognized by any UN member state not considered by this article to be sovereign states (except the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which controls and claims literally no territory).
2: A source discussing the Montevideo declarative theory of statehood. Previous attempts to add Donetsk and Luhansk to the list of sovereign states were shot down because no academic or otherwise reliable source described either entity as specifically qualifying as de facto states under the declarative theory of statehood. However, a 2020 issue of the Washington University Global Studies Law Review (more specifically pages 13-21) explicitly examines whether Donetsk or Luhansk meet the declarative theory of statehood set up by the Montevideo Convention. Here is what the source concludes regarding the four criteria, though if you're curious for context you can read it yourself:
The source concludes that "the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples' Republics plausibly meet the Montevideo criteria for statehood" (bold emphasis mine). Some of the language used is definitive, particularly for criteria 1 and 3, but clearly there is room for interpretation with the wording used. Still, I would argue that the source makes clear that Donetsk and Luhansk qualify as de facto sovereign states under the Montevideo declarative theory of statehood, and that their inclusion into this article should at least be reconsidered.
Also, given the recent growing intensity of the information war of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict and the timing of this post, I should probably add that for anyone concerned, I'm not pro-Russia, and I think that the separatists are repressive, illegal, warmongering Russian proxies that do not speak for the people of Donetsk or Luhansk. AxolotlsAreCool ( talk) 05:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
three other territories that have unilaterally declared independence and are generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria for statehood but have not been recognized by any states: Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland.
Kosovo should be moved to the main list, the one that has Israel, North and South Korea and the like. This is because reliable sources are unanimous in their verdict that Kosovo is a fully fledged sovereign state. Own flag, own anthem, own custom, one control of 100% of territory. Recognized by majority of UN. So all that is required is a purple tag saying "partially unrecognized" to show Serbia's disapproval (and its backer Russia, I don't think there are any important countries that don't recognize Kosovo). -- Thelostranger ( talk) 16:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Kosovo is not UN member state Rafael Ronen 17:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
We will do a test. When a country meets all of the above, they can be in category 1 as top level sovereign. If you have less than six, you are not sovereign. If you have between six and eleven (out of twelve), you can be in a "mid-table". Reckon we can use this to get a wider consensus? Thelostranger ( talk) 13:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
PS. About the list I created, just to prove I am not an anti-Serb (as Serbia would not qualify as "sovereign" since it claims Kosovo but doesn't control it). To be fair to Serbia and to Serbs, by admitting Kosovo as sovereign, we as a result will carve out Serbia's true shape thus saving it from demotion. -- Thelostranger ( talk) 13:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
PS. Palestine would be knocked out of the new list. Basically sovereign would mean: The UN, the Vatican & The Republic of Kosovo (195 countries of the world is highly sourced). Thelostranger ( talk) 13:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
At Talk:List of states with limited recognition#Niue, Cook Islands there is a discussion of the apparent contradiction of these two being included here as sovereign states (Other states) but not included there. It seems that they should both be included (my preference based on a Duck test) or both excluded (the argument being that no-one really knows their status). Selfstudier ( talk) 10:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I have initiated an RFC at List of states with limited recognition about this issue. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
List of countries in 2006 and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 28#List of countries in 2006 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Tartar
Torte
16:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Türkiye Cumhuriyeti başkanı Recep Tayyip Erdoğan fotoğrafı yerine Mustafa Kemal Atatürkün fotoğrafını nasıl ekleriz 38.10.69.123 ( talk) 21:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
The "Claimed by" template doesn't seem to work for Ukraine in the Luhansk and Donetsk PR row. Wcdowchb ( talk) 03:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
FYI after Türkiye case: Where WIKI COMMONNAME does not match official ISO or UN short name
Wiki Common name | Short name | ISO or UN |
---|---|---|
The Bahamas | Bahamas (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Bolivia | Bolivia (Plurinational State of) | [ISO + UN] |
Brunei | Brunei Darussalam | [ISO + UN] |
Cape Verde | Cabo Verde | [ISO + UN] |
Central African Republic | Central African Republic (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Comoros | Comoros (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Democratic Republic of the Congo | Congo (the Democratic Republic of the) | [ISO] |
Democratic Republic of the Congo (the) | [UN] | |
Republic of the Congo | Congo (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Czech Republic | Czechia | [ISO + UN] |
Kingdom of Denmark | Denmark | [ISO + UN] |
Dominican Republic | Dominican Republic (the) | [ISO + UN] |
East Timor | Timor-Leste | [ISO + UN] |
The Gambia | Gambia (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Iran | Iran (Islamic Republic of) | [ISO + UN] |
Ivory Coast | Côte d'Ivoire | [ISO + UN] |
North Korea | Korea (the Democratic People's Republic of) | [ISO] |
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (the) | [UN] | |
South Korea | Korea (the Republic of) | [ISO] |
Republic of Korea (the) | [UN] | |
Laos | Lao People's Democratic Republic (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Marshall Islands | Marshall Islands (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Federated States of Micronesia | Micronesia (Federated States of) | [ISO + UN] |
Moldova | Moldova (the Republic of) | [ISO] |
Republic of Moldova (the) | [UN] | |
Kingdom of the Netherlands | Netherlands (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Niger | Niger (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Palestine | Palestine, State of | [ISO] |
State of Palestine (the) | [UN] | |
Philippines | Philippines (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Russia | Russian Federation (the) | [ISO + UN] |
São Tomé and Príncipe | Sao Tome and Principe | [ISO + UN] |
Sudan | Sudan (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Syria | Syrian Arab Republic (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Tanzania | Tanzania, the United Republic of | [ISO] |
United Republic of Tanzania (the) | [UN] | |
Turkey | Türkiye | [UN] |
United Arab Emirates | United Arab Emirates (the) | [ISO + UN] |
United Kingdom | United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the) | [ISO + UN] |
United States | United States of America (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Venezuela | Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) | [ISO + UN] |
Vietnam | Viet Nam | [ISO + UN] |
Chrz ( talk) 17:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Do you think maybe that note should be updated as more and more places are using Czechia like I dunno the UN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.106.172 ( talk) 22:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
the note says it has no recognition from any other state but the foreign relations of Taiwan page says that Taiwan recognizes it. So which one is it? Masterball2 ( talk) 07:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
For info, there is an WP:RM at Talk:Republic of Macedonia, and an RFC being planned at WT:MOSMAC that would lead to a change in the consensus around how we should name that country.
To remind everyone, WP:MOSMAC is the binding and enforceable result of Arbcom proceedings, intended to resolve the spillover of the Macedonia naming dispute on Wikipedia. There is a 1RR restriction in place for all changes to the name of the Republic of Macedonia on all articles, that does not apply to editors restoring the WP:MOSMAC consensus.
It would appear that the discussion is headed toward a position where the article Republic of Macedonia will be renamed in anticipation of a change to WP:MOSMAC, but if this is the consensus it will only apply to that article. References to Macedonia on other articles (including this one) will continue to rely on WP:MOSMAC. Which means that, whatever the outcome of the RM, we are required not to adopt the new name until it is approved by the RFC. This will take at least 30 days from the day the RFC is opened. Kahastok talk 18:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
When it comes to North Macedonia should it be "Macedonia, North"? Just like North Korea is Korea, North. Just a thought. thanks earth1000
I recommend a new column for the language(s) the sovereign states' Constitution(s) are written in.-- Wyn.junior ( talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I suggest numbering this list of 206 states.-- Wyn.junior ( talk) 18:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
This is an article for Member states of the United Nations. This here is a list of sovereign states. There are great interruptions to this article because of the UN information. I am suggesting we delete the full United Nations columns from this article. The UN Status could be noted in the "Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty" column with the rest of the information. Then we could have a full list in alphabetic order without any interruptions-- Wyn.junior ( talk) 17:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
A world map is needed with each of the 206 sovereign states mapped out.-- Wyn.junior ( talk) 17:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Wiz9999 removed a note I had added concerning the fact that the International Court of Justice has issued an opinion to the effect that the United Kingdom’s administration of the territory is unlawful and that the United Kingdom’s separation of the territory from Mauritius was unlawful.
The list contains many notes to the effect that this or that state is not recognised by this or that state or by this or that many states etc. The most authoritive statement we have to go by as to the status of the territory in question is that the United Kingdom does not have legitimate sovereignty over it. That and many, many states have voted at the UN and made public statements to the effect that the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over this territory is not recognised and its administration of the territory is unlawful.
Should the list really make no mention of any of this? It seems rather inconsistent with the approach taken as regards the states listed to me. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 02:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Morrocco is quite on point: Let’s paraphrase your words. ”No, because it is a territorial dispute of a dependent territory, not of the governing state itself.“ Morrocco claims that Western Sahara is its territory. That claim is not accepted by all. A note explaining the Moroccan position is included. Why would the fact that the UK claims sovereignty over BIOT not be included in just the same way?
Again, in a similar vein to Pakistan but this time even closer to BIOT because Pakistan administers a territory that - according to what’s written - it doesn’t claim to have annexed - the UK has not annexed BIOT either. But the UK, like Pakistan, asserts that it has sovereignty over the disputed territory in question.
If there is indeed some principle of general application that you are defending in cutting out an explanation that the sovereignty of BIOT is disputed, I can’t even speculate on how the above statement is included.
Why’s this in there?
Do tell us why this is included? I think there is a lot of inconsistency. I also think there is a failure to identify what’s important and take care to ensure it is included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchmalawi ( talk • contribs) 00:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
the UK has not annexed BIOT eitherThis is an unsubstantiated statement. All evidence suggests that the UK actually HAS de facto control (i.e. annexed) the BIOT. If you have some kind of evidence to suggest that the UK is not in control of this territory, then I would kindly ask that you present it for us. Seeing as much of your argument rests on this unsubstantiated principal that the UK is not in control of BIOT but merely claims it (as the USA claims Bajo Nuevo Bank and Serranilla Bank), then this would be critical to a consideration your current argument. The comparisons to Kashmir in India/ Pakistan, Kosovo in Serbia/ Kosovo, and Crimea in Ukraine/ Russia are completely different as these territories are autonomous regions which are not only controlled by the latter state, but are wholly integrated into it. This is unlike the BIOT which is a dependent territory of the UK and thus not integrated within it. You have raised a good point about Bajo Nuevo Bank and Serranilla Bank being dependent territories of the USA and not actually a part of the state of the USA, neither are they controlled by it. Thus these two 'claims' do not really belong on this list, and I will remove them both now.
Wiz seemed to think I was suggesting that the UK does not administer BIOT. Of course, I never suggested any such thing. Pakistan claims sovereignty over the Kashmir territory mentioned. It also administers it. But it hasn’t integrated the territory into the Pakistani state. The UK claims sovereignty over BIOT. It also administers it. It hasn’t integrated BIOT into the UK. That’s the comparison. It hasn’t annexed it tot eh UK; it’s a territory the UK claims sovereignty over. But anyway, that’s rather of point. CMD:
Separate to my concerns about the inconsistency re BIOT, why is there no mention in the list of the disputed status of the regions of Antarctica? As an example, the UK’s purported sovereignty over part of Antarctica has very limited recognition. But it’s included as if it’s universally accepted. Seriously, is this list concerned with listing jurisdictions with sovereignty or not? What’s with all the multiple standards and approaches. It may not be easy, but it’s really not that complicated. (Separately, I sometimes struggle with editing on an iPad - don’t know where tildas are so forgive absence of signature please).— Preceding unsigned comment added by French Malawi ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I have restored the Abyei Area as a bulleted polity under both the Sudan and South Sudan entries in the list. It is a non-state polity created by international agreement, in which the parent state's sovereignty is limited by treaty, the 2004 Protocol on the Resolution of the Abyei Conflict. It thus falls in the same category as Hong Kong, Aland, Svalbard, ect. The territory dispute is irrelevant when considering its inclusion as a bulleted entry in the list. XavierGreen ( talk) 17:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Right, I am sick of this constant back and forth about this bullet point. It is expressly included here since it is listed on the
dependent territories page. This is consistent with the current list's criteria, which states: Dependent territories of another state, as well as areas that exhibit many characteristics of dependent territories according to the
dependent territory page
when describing what should be listed as a bullet point. It must be removed from that page before it would be permitted to be removed from this page. The criteria is clear on this. Those that wish this dependent territory delisted from this article please take your quarrel over there. -
Wiz9999 (
talk)
02:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not think that it is in conformity with NPOV to classify the State of Palestine with the 194 generally recognized sovereign states (i.e., the 193 UN member states plus Vatican City, whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone--crucially, not even by Italy, which is the only state that could claim Vatican City as part of its territory, and which recognized the Holy See's sovereignty over Vatican City in the Lateran Treaty of 1929). The State of Palestine applied for membership in the UN, and its application was rejected; the UN converted the PLO's status as an "observer entity" to an "observer state" status for the State of Palestine as a consolation prize. While over 100 UN members recognize the State of Palestine as a sovereign state, these are disproportionately developing countries, and it is not recognized by any of the G7 nations, nor, indeed, by most large, developed economies. Moreover, the State of Palestine does not have a unified government that rules over its two, noncontiguous, territories (Gaza and the West Bank).
I also fail to see how it complies with NPOV to treat the State of Palestine differently from the Republic of Kosovo, which has never been rejected for UN membership (nor applied for it) and whose sovereignty is recognized by over 100 UN members, including by all seven G7 countries (US, UK, Germany, Japan, France, Italy and Canada) plus Australia, Netherlands, Belgium, South Korea, Denmark, New Zealand, Austria and others, as well as by 23 out of the 28 members of the European Union. Palestine and Kosovo are very similar cases, and, if anything, Kosovo has a better claim to general international recognition than Palestine. I recommend that both countries be treated similarly, as .
I believe that it is an exercise in POV to avert one's eyes from the facts and pretend that the State of Palestine (or the Republic of Kosovo, for that matter) is a generally recognized sovereign state. Let's classify it as what it is: a de facto sovereign state with substantial, but not general, international recognition. This description applies not only to Palestine and Kosovo, but also to Taiwan and Western Sahara, but would exclude de facto states with little or no international recognition such as Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Somaliland, etc. The recognition status of such de facto states is nuanced, and their classification should be as well.
I'm pinging @ User:Wiz9999 and @ User:Chipmunkdavis, but welcome comments from all interested editors.
AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 19:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The question we have to ask is, what change in the criteria dividing the two lists do you propose?
At present, the top part of the list presents UN member and observer states (the observers being Palestine and the Vatican), the bottom half presents entities that meet the selection criteria for the list that are not UN member or observer states.
If you wish to change the split, you will need to provide a better criterion to split the list with. That criterion will have to be simple to understand and objectively justifiable (we can't just pretend that Palestine is not a UN observer or that Kosovo is) without original research, while achieving the aim of of the split - which is to preserve the neutrality of the list by splitting off the generally-unrecognised entities from the generally recognised states. The current split achieves all this.
And when doing this, bear in mind that there are pages and pages and pages of archives discussing this precise point in minute detail, and that for those of us who participated in that discussion, it is likely that persuasive new argument will be required before we unpick the compromise that was reached. Kahastok talk 21:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The UN "didn't vote upon" Palestine's application for membership when statements by members of the Security Council made clear that approval would not be granted, so Palestine's supporters moved to table the vote; you can boast that "it wasn't formally rejected" if you wish, but the implication was clear. And if being an observer state was such a big deal, why didn't Palestine request to be made an observer state?
I never said that the State of Palestine aspires to have control over its claimed territory in the West Bank and Gaza; I said that it aspires to be recognized as a sovereign state, but that it hasn't reached that goal yet. Israel has permitted the State of Palestine to have control over the West Bank and Gaza (except when it doesn't), and control by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, respectively, is consistent with that of other de facto states.
As for Taiwan, you should know better than to take the number of countries that officially have diplomatic relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan) as the number that recognizes its sovereignty. Given that the Republic of China claims that recognition of its sovereignty implies recognition that the government of the Republic of China is the rightful government of all of China (including the mainland), and that the People's Republic of China has a firm policy of withdrawing diplomatic relations from any state that officially recognizes the Republic of China's sovereignty, it should not surprise anyone that only a few countries have decided to spurn the People's Republic of China and officially recognize the Republic of China. But far more countries recognize Taiwan on a de facto basis and maintain informal governmental relations with its government. In fact, among the countries listed in the "Foreign relations of Taiwan" Wikipedia article as having "non-diplomatic, unofficial governmental relations" with the Republic of China are 14 of the 15 countries with the highest GDP (all but, you guessed it, the People's Republic of China). That's pretty substantial recognition of Taiwan's status as a sovereign state, although it obviously falls far short of general international recognition (even further away than are Kosovo and Palestine). Here's the pertinent section of the "Foreign relations of Taiwan" Wikipedia article:
"Non-diplomatic representation See also: Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office
The ROC has non-diplomatic, unofficial governmental relations with the European Union and at least 47 states, recognising the PRC, that maintain "Economic, Trade and/or Cultural" (or similar) offices in Taiwan. These relations are not inter-governmental nor are they officially diplomatic or political. However, they have many of the functions usually assigned to actual embassies, including the processing of visas, cultural exchanges and to some extent, unofficial diplomatic and governmental exchanges.
For example, the American Institute in Taiwan functions as the United States' de facto embassy with the chairman and staff acting as unofficial government consulate officers who nevertheless perform duties that official embassies would undertake. Ireland does not maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan and the Taipei Representative Office in Dublin has no diplomatic or political status, referring to UN Resolution 2758.[60]
Oceania (3 states)
Australia New Zealand Papua New Guinea
Asia (12 states and 2 territories)
Brunei Hong Kong India Indonesia Japan South Korea Macau Malaysia Mongolia Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam
Middle East (5 states)
Israel Jordan Oman Saudi Arabia Turkey
Africa (2 states)
Nigeria[61] South Africa
Europe (18 states)
Austria Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Hungary Italy Latvia Luxembourg Netherlands Poland Russia Slovakia Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom
North America (3 states)
Canada Mexico United States
South America (4 states)
Argentina Brazil Chile Peru
AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 18:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
“ | I never said that the State of Palestine aspires to have control over its claimed territory in the West Bank and Gaza; I said that it aspires to be recognized as a sovereign state, but that it hasn't reached that goal yet. | ” |
The "sovereignty dispute" column's inclusions criterion is:
This column indicates whether or not a state is the subject of a major sovereignty dispute. Only states whose entire sovereignty is disputed by another state are listed.
Given that, the IP making this edit needs to provide some evidence that the status of the Cook Islands and Niue is actively disputed by some other state.
To be clear, this is not the same as their not being recognised as sovereign states. There are numerous examples internationally of states that are not formally recognised without the existence of any dispute, and these are not generally listed here because this column lists sovereignty disputes, not cases of lack of recognition.
(What you'll actually find is that most of the work accepts that the Cook Islands and Niue are whatever they say they are and that whether that amounts to formal sovereignty or something else is up to them.) Kahastok talk 09:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Since they're Dependent territories, therefore, They're not States. So Yes, they have no Sovereignty. 2607:FEA8:F420:3DD1:6166:9E39:EDC5:98F9 ( talk) 22:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Bringing a conversation in a few edit summaries here. Many items have been added to the extent that do not fall within the previously discussed inclusion criteria. The criteria, listed on the page, is:
Remaining additions that fall outside these, and which are inconsistently applied for some countries but not others, include:
Due to their lack of relation to the points mentioned, and their arbitrary application to only one country each, I don't think this information belongs here. They fall outside the scope of the article, and should be removed.
There are other current inclusions which may be worth discussing:
Thoughts on all these matters, or others, are welcome. CMD ( talk) 04:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Specifics on how Turkey deals with the Cypriot Government, which is not included for other disputed states,- I will save this one for later...
The official designation of Italy's autonomous regions, something not included for other autonomous areas, (aside from perhaps Chile, which may also need looking into,)- The official terms used by these states for internal purposes is relevant when discussing potentially confusing dependent territories. It can lead to confusion in understanding, as is evident in my comments about the next two statements below.
The inclusion of Sevastopol as a special city of Ukraine, while no other cities are mentioned outside of federative structures and even Ukraine's other special status city isn't included, and- The term " special status city" is an internal designation of Ukraine, it does not relate to a city level division, but a federal level division. The federal " City of Sevastopol" is not a part of the rest of the " Autonomous Republic of Crimea", they are two separate first level administrative divisions. When Russia annexed Crimea (the peninsula) from Ukraine, both the federal units of the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the "City of Sevastopol" were annexed, not just the republic of crimea.
The inclusion of Palmrya Atoll, despite that being a full part of the United States.- Palmyra Atoll is most certainly NOT a full part of the United States. It may be constitutionally linked to it (having the official status of an 'Incorporated Unorganised' territory), which stands in contrast to most of the other uninhabited USA islands (which have a status of an 'Unincorporated Unorganised' territory) which are not directly constitutionally linked to the USA. However, the distinction between these terms/concepts is unique to the USA, and does not really have a bearing on the concept of a 'dependent territory'. Besides, the territory in question (Palmyra Atoll) is still listed on the United States Minor Outlying Islands list and it is included on the Dependent territory#United States list, which is directly a part of this article's criteria for inclusion as a bullet point sub-entry, as noted in the last lines of List of sovereign states#Criteria for inclusion. Generally, what is considered to be a part of the USA's internal federal structure is only the 50 states, and the federal District of Columbia, Palmyra Atoll is a part of neither of these.
I'm familiar with Macedonia, but this has no bearing on the term the Turkish Government designates the Cypriot Government. There is no need to describe the situation at all, let alone consider the wording of the matter.- It was meant as an example as to why a description of the terms matter. Regardless, I feel there is most definitely a need to explain to the reader why Turkey does not recognise Cyprus overall. The reader will not necessarily be aware of the Cyprus dispute, and the criteria listed in note 'd.' does specify that
The extent to which a state's sovereignty is recognised internationallyis important. Providing this clarification to the reader (that this lack of recognition is BECAUSE of the Cyprus dispute) is really not detracting from the statement about lack of recognition by Turkey. Also, if you truly feel that no clarification is needed regarding the situation then why did you not remove all the information past "Cyprus is not recognised by Turkey"? In your original edit you removed the highly relevant link to the Cyprus dispute, but left the information about recognition of Northern Cyprus. To me that is double standards if you are claiming that "there is no need to describe the situation at all", to which I disagree anyway. With regards to the wording, I still feel it is relevant, as it is not the only place on the list that describes 'unique' terms/nomenclature (see China, Denmark, Israel, or the Netherlands as I stated before and also Russia and ROC/Taiwan).
Italy has no dependent territories to be potentially confused about. And again, this inclusion is inconsistent.- No it doesn't. However, Italy is not the only places that describes internally unique terms (see China, Denmark, Israel, the Netherlands, Russia, the USA, etc.)
I'm aware of that the special status city is a Ukrainian designation, I mentioned this in my comment and even pointed out there was one other. It is not a federal division, as Ukraine is not a federation. I'm also familiar with the Russian annexation of Sevastopol, but that has no bearing on the point, unless you feel that annexed territories should be included in this article, which I would disagree with.- I never said that annexed territories should be included in this list, I simply feel it is disingenuous to imply Russia's annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea without having annexed Sevastopol as well (you are right about my usage of "federal division" here being incorrect earlier, since what I meant was "first level administrative division" in lieu of that term). Honestly, I feel we shouldn't mention the annexation of either of these two entities without describing the situation with Donetsk and Luhansk as well, as Crimea is just a part of this wider overall russophone conflict with Russia. I actually believe, upon further thought over this entry, that it should be re-worded to better describe the fact that this is an Autonomous region of Ukraine which is a separate concept to the dispute issues.
Palmyra atoll is part of the United States. It is, as you note, incorporated. If as you claim incorporation "does not really have a bearing on the concept of a dependent territory", then what to you does? It underlies the very concept.- Inclusion on this list ( Dependent territory) is what I constitute a 'dependent territory' for the purposes of this article, as that is what is specified by the criteria. Entries on that list must satisfy the following statement:
A dependent territory, dependent area or dependency is a territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a sovereign state yet remains politically outside the controlling state's integral area.of which Palmyra Atoll does (as it is not a part of the 50 states, nor the D.C.), thus it is included on that list, hence it is included on this list. If you really wish for it to be removed from this list, then I would suggest you go and argue for its removal from that list instead, as these bullet point entries in this list are based on the dependent territory list/article. "Incorporated" from a US internal legal concept is different from actual incorporation of a state by another state as a concept of international politics (See Incorporated town and Unincorporated area#United States, and yes I am aware that we are not discussing towns here but the idea of US legal incorporation verses unincorporation here is equivalent between small towns as it is for territories) For example, on the Russian Annexation of Crimea article, the following statement is found in the lead:
Russia formally incorporated Crimea as two federal subjects of the Russian Federation with effect from 18 March 2014.Such usage can also be found reflected in sources [2] - Wiz9999 ( talk) 06:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Dependent territories of another state, as well as areas that exhibit many characteristics of dependent territories according to the dependent territory page. That is why this article is based on the dependent territory article. It is blatantly stated in the criteria. This source [3] explains why an "insular area" (of which Palmyra Atoll is a part) is not a part of the US states nor is it a part of any federal district, and that it is just a territory. But you really should take your argument about this entity at this point to the dependent territory page instead, as I will not consider the removal of Palmyra Atoll from this article until it is removed from there, due to the aforementioned criteria. - Wiz9999 ( talk) 18:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
What reason is there to include dependencies that in an article about sovereign states? In particular the U.S. unincorporated territories (except American Samoa) have no legal personalities. (That is, they cannot enter into contracts or have standing in courts.) TFD ( talk) 16:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Some sources list sovereign states only and some also list dependent states too. The problem though is that when it is left to editors or to experts for that matter to determine what is a sovereign state, there will be disagreement. Taiwan for example is a province of China but acts as a sovereign state. Niue and the Cook Islands are associated states but New Zealand considers them to be dependencies. Either we have an objective standard for inclusion in the list, or we can argue over these exceptional cases ad infinitum. TFD ( talk) 18:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Vatican? The only thing I can think of for them is that their not a full UN Member. 2607:FEA8:F420:3DD1:6166:9E39:EDC5:98F9 ( talk) 22:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic have declared themselves independent, control certain territories (and probably will continue to do so as long as Russia supports them), and have government entities working in their controlled territory. I don't see much difference between these two and Somaliland. Shall we include them into the list (in the section "other states"), what do you think? -- Tscherpownik ( talk) 22:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I have added Taiwan into the generally recognized list again. While I know there are CCP sympathizers on this site, there is no good reason Taiwan should not be included while Palestine is. Taiwan is recognized by multiple UN states, goes above and beyond the requirements of the Montevideo Convention, and is a UN observer state, which is what the list requires. In fact, Taiwan is more sovereign than Palestine, as Taiwan is fully capable of self-defense and has a functioning economy, while Palestine is defenseless and is almost entirely dependent on foreign aid. Please stop changing it back unless you can give a valid reason Palestine is in there. -- KanzazKyote ( talk) 03:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of counties and cities. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesome Hwyh 23:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Recently, there was an AFD whose particular discussion I closed as no consensus. In that discussion, there seemed to be a consensus that there was a need to take a closer look at the general list series involving sovereign states by decade. I am opening up this RFC in the hopes that this might be a place to further that discussion. Best, bibliomaniac 1 5 01:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Ans: I am afraid you have misunderstood the system of this list regarding the entries of the type "X → Y". They have nothing to do with "common name → formal name". They are meant for easy navigation if someone looks for a country under another name than the one used in the list, or if someone is looking in the wrong list. If someone looks for "North Korea", they find the entry "North Korea → Korea, North", where "Korea, North" is clickable, and if you click on it, you come to the entry for the country. If someone looks for "Artsakh" in the main list, they find the entry "Artsakh → Artsakh", where the second "Artsakh" is clickable and brings you to the entry for Artsakh in the "Other states" list. The same happens if you are looking for "Nagorno-Karabakh". You then find "Nagorno-Karabakh → Artsakh" and can click to the entry for "Artsakh". The way you have changed it, if you look for "Taiwan" in the main list, you find "Taiwan → Republic of China", indicating that you should look for "Republic of China" in the list, not clickable. But "Republic in China" is not in the list, and what you actually are looking for, is found under "Taiwan" in the "Other states" list. Also the entry you removed, was a similarly useful navigation tool. Please self revert. -- T*U ( talk) 13:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The Southern Transitional Council has declared self-governance on 26 April 2020. In Aden, the movement's attempt was successful, as it occupied all governmental institutions. How to categorize this? Is it a de facto government like in Somaliland even if maybe too soon to tell? Wykx ( talk) 19:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether Wa State would count as a sovereign state, since they have declared independence from Myanmar and administer themselves? Unown Uzer717 ( talk) 07:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The Judea and Samaria Area, the Isreali administration in the West Bank, should be added as an bulleted entity to the list under Israel. It is an Israeli administrative division that is not an integral part of of Israel, it thus is similar in many respects to the Pakistani administered territories of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan and is likewise akin to a territory or dependency and should be treated as such in the article. XavierGreen ( talk) 01:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The table includes bullets representing entities which are either not sovereign states or have a close association to another sovereign state. It also includes subnational areas where the sovereignty of the titular state is limited by an international agreement. Taken together, these include:
- States in a free association relationship to another state
- Two entities controlled by Pakistan which are neither sovereign states, dependent territories, or part of another state: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan
- Dependent territories of another state, as well as areas that exhibit many characteristics of dependent territories according to the dependent territory page
- Subnational entities created by international agreements
No offence to @ Yash400: but the new map that has been added to the article is not the best map. I know it has been sourced directly from the UN, but there are weird issues and choices that the UN made in drawing it up. The map indicates the Pakistan/ India/ China border in Kashmir as being disputed, a note about the unique situation is made as well. Fair Enough. However, they then show the entire Sudan/ South Sudan border as "not yet been determined". Only portions of this border are in dispute (around the Abyei area and the Radom National Park) with the rest of it being defined. A text note is made for the Sudan/South Sudan section as well. However, the border dispute between Egypt and Sudan is indicated and is not mentioned in text, as is an undefined section of border between Ethiopia and Somalia. The Koreas are shown as having a disputed border (again, fair enough), but also no mention is made of the circumstances in the text area. Conversely, the Falkland Islands are indicated with a double **, but are solely indicated on the map with text as being in a disputed situation. Palestine is outlined but not labelled, but no other limited recognition state is shown (Ok, fair point it is a UN observer, but the Holy See does have its name on the map too). In addition to all of this, font sizes are inconsistent and change size within some official state names (e.g. the Koreas and Laos) but not in others (e.g. DR Congo and Moldova). The map indicates most dependent territories, but excludes some, particularly the Heard and McDonald Islands and Kerguelen which are completely covered by the massive block of text. Meanwhile some non-dependent territories are listed (e.g. Tromelin, Cargados Carajos Shoals, and Marquesas) despite being subunits of a territorial division and/or mostly uninhabited. All these are very inconsistent practices, and I am not sure what the original map makers were thinking when drawing up the map other than to highlight certain specific disputes from their POV. – Wiz9999 ( talk) 13:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
If we arrange the list of countries by alphabetical order, considering we put The Bahamas under B and The Gambia under G, shouldn't we put El Salvador (literally means The Salvador) under S? 144.130.162.86 ( talk) 09:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The current sections of the list make absolutely no sense, since redirects of non-member states are included in the member's section of the list. The list should either be sectioned by member status or sorted strictly in alphabetical order. Which one should it be? -- MB-one ( talk) 10:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
A couple editors seem insistent on the idea that Taiwan claims China as part of territory, based solely on statements former Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou, of the no-longer-in-power Kuomintang party, made over a decade ago. If a former US president declared that Canada should be part of the US, that wouldn't make it the United States' official position. Without better evidence or a fuller discussion, this doesn't belong here. 98.7.83.199 ( talk) 00:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I think we should add the Order of Malta because it is technically a sovereign state, however, I think we should add it in a different category (not as Sovereign State or Other State), it should be called something like "Other Recognized Sovereign Entities". User: Rodrigo B D —Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is not included, as despite being a sovereign entity it lacks territory and does not claim statehood. FDW777 ( talk) 13:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that is true but it is also a UN observer state right? User: Rodrigo B D —Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I think the "Other States" Heading is too broad because someone might see the other states heading and they might think Azawad and Dar'El'Kuti should also be there. I think we should change it to Partially recognized and Unrecognized States. User: Rodrigo B D —Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it better excludes them because they are proto-states, and it could be confused with Other States. However, I do understand perfectly what you mean by not changing the title User: Rodrigo B D —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Why don't we add proto-states to the "other States" part? These should include Donetsk, Luhansk, and Dar El Kuti (and maybe Kurdistan too) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo B D ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone add Donetsk and Lugansk? They fall under the same criteria as Pridnestrovie. 'Doomer1557' ( talk) 15:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we should add them to the list because there is one major difference between them which is that Pridnestrovie holds all of its territories, and the DPR and LPR don't, they only hold a portion of what is left of their original territorial claims. However, there is one more thing that prevents them from entering the list, the fact that they are still at war with Ukraine. User: Rodrigo B D —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to make a case for adding the Principality of Sealand to the list of "other states." Before you write off my proposal because of it's current status as a "micronation", I'd ask that you read what I've wrote and take it into consideration. Thank you.
I'd like to start of by saying that I'm not trying to clear a path for micronations to be included. They should stay in a separate article. Rather, I believe that I can make a circumstantial case for it's inclusion. Right now in the article, we have criteria for states that must be met for inclusion into the list. What I'm proposing is the inclusion of the Principality of Sealand into the "Other states" list as a Non-Member, undisputed territory.
To start, I will go over each piece of criteria in detail to explain the reason that Sealand meats each one. The criteria that a sate must satisfy is either:
This criteria has been evaluated and discussed by many users and by common consensus, is what Wikipedia uses. For Sealand to satisfy the criteria for the first one, it has to: 1) consider themselves sovereign and; 2) Sealand must also satisfy the declarative theory. Sealand satisfies the first one because they consider themselves as sovereign as stated no and at numerous point throughout it's history. Sealand also satisfies the declarative theory. It is the only "micronation" to complete this "checklist." No other has or probably ever will come anywhere even close. The declarative theory is made up of four criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. I'll go over each one in more detail below.
1) a defined territory. Sealand has a defined territory that consists of Fort Roughs. It's an island (the way in which it was constructed and "installed" means it fits the definition of artificial island, not a platform.) that has an area of .004 square km. The United Nations convention of the law of the sea (UNCLOS) is brought up at times in this instance because the island is artificial. I must point out that Sealand was founded in 1967 and that UNCLOS was effective starting in 1994. A law written in the future doesn't retroactively remove Sovereignty, it was in place and established decades before UNCLOS was drafted. Sealand's land, at the time of founding, was outside the UK's territorial waters. This claim was challenged and British courts ruled that the United Kingdom does not claim ownership or jurisdiction of Sealand. Effectively, this means that the land was uncontested by any existing government. The UK did extend it's territorial waters to 12 nm in 1987, but this was both after the ruling (that British sovereignty didn't apply on the island) and after the founding of Sealand. This means that Sealand is enclaved by the UK's waters, but isn't part of the UK because the UK doesn't claim or apply it's own sovereignty to the island. Think of it like a normal maritime border where Sealand is surrounded by but not a part of the UK's waters.
2) a permanent population. This one won't be as long, there is always people living on Sealand and there is no minimum for people. While it is an abnormally low count of people, so are states like that Vatican, and again, there is no minimum.
3) a government. Sealand has a government structured as a principality and has a formal constitution to govern the state.
4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. This one is the hardest for any new state to fulfill. But Sealand has demonstrated it's capacity to enter into relations with other states on many occasions. The most notable being when it hosted a German diplomat for diplomatic purposes between Germany and the Principality. This unequivocally shows the Sealand satisfies this final requirement for inclusion into this article.
Irregardless of Sealand's status, for the last 53 years it has been de facto sovereign from any other government. Something that can't be said about any other "micronational" entity. This is why I believe it should no longer be classified as a micronation. I know that for many of you reading this, that word has been stuck in your mind, that it's a micronation and the nothing else matters, but the circumstances of Sealand are far different then any other declared entity. What would we classify it as? Well, we have the criteria right here in the list. In the list of "other states" under UN recognized states, we have two column, the first one being UN membership with three different options already used for states in that list. They are: No membership, special UN member, and former UN member. Sealand fits into the "No membership" status. The second column is the sovereignty dispute one. In accordance with the UK's ruling on no jurisdiction, the column would be "None" (Similar to Somaliland's status in the table). The table and legend already have the criteria needed for inclusion because it's been de facto sovereign for over 50 years. Even if it doesn't get recognition by other states, it's still by virtue of fact sovereign.
To wrap thing up, Sealand should no longer be considered a Micronation and instead be reclassified as sovereign state. in fact, it should never have been classified as a micronation because it has demonstrated sovereignty for over 50 years, really before the term micronation was used. It is the only one that has fulfilled all of the necessary criteria to become a state, no other one has ever come anywhere close. It has been de facto independent for over 50 years, stood up to early challenges of sovereignty and clearly meets all of the necessary criteria for inclusion on this list. In the meantime, I have already prepared it's entry into the list of "other states" and I am ready to implement it upon the consensus.
Thank you for reading this and I hope you can consider it's inclusion based on what I have written here over the last few days! Jrcraft Yt ( talk) 06:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a list of sovereign states, not a list of abandoned structures out at sea where some schmuck decided to camp out and pretend to be the president of his own country. AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 04:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Why is Taiwan listed three times (twice in the "UN member states and observer states" group under "China, Republic of" and "Taiwan", even though Taiwan is not that, and again (correctly) in the "other states" group)? I was going to just boldly remove the duplicates until I noticed Artsakh has the same thing going on. Can someone please clean this page up? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Jjkkk Jim Qasme ( talk) 22:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Countires of the world. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 28#Countires of the world until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
JsfasdF252 (
talk)
18:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the map added to this article. We had a discussion on a different map a few months ago.
The biggest issue here is that the map is sourced from the CIA World Factbook and therefore reflects the POV of the United States government. Patently this is not a neutral POV. For example, it treats Kosovo as independent. It ignores other states from the second part of the list, and it also outlines the West Bank and Gaza but without labelling them. Some disputed borders are included (e.g. in Kashmir), some not (e.g. in Crimea).
The image summary at Commons has a tag on it that says, This image is expected to always be the most recent one. Feel free to update it when needed.
It seems reasonable to assume that it will evolve over time. Most obviously, the next edition is likely to reflect the new US stance on Western Sahara - a position that is not widely held internationally.
Overall, I view this in the same way as I view all the other proposals to add information that goes beyond the core purpose of the list. Which is, that it's almost certainly going to be more trouble than it's worth. Kahastok talk 11:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I just changed the given number for fully recognized nations from 190 to 188, and here is the edit summary I put: "It says that there are 190 nations ith no sovereignty dispute, however, I belive that it is only 188, 187 members (as it says 6 partially unrecognized members) plus the Vatican, an observer, with the other observer being Palestine is partially unrecognized, and then the 9 other nonmembers or observers remains unchanged"
I belive this mistake was made due to having Cook Islands and Niue also say that there is no sovereignty dispute. 98.114.153.7 ( talk) 22:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
The "Criteria for inclusion" section of the article currently includes the following paragraph:
However, I do not believe that it is correct that there are 203 states that are recognized *as sovereign states* by at least one UN member state. All 193 UN member states, Vatican City, Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and the SADR (Western Sahara) are recognized as sovereign states by a considerable number of states, which takes us to 198. Then there are two de-facto sovereign states within Georgian territory that are recognized as sovereign by Russia and a few other UN members: Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which takes us to 200. And then there is Northern Cyprus, a de-facto sovereign state recognized as sovereign only by Turkey, which takes us to 201. That means that, when the article claims that "203 states are recognized by at least one UN member," it is deeming the Cook Islands and Niue--free associated states within the Realm of New Zealand--as being "recognized" as sovereign by at least one UN member. I would posit that, while it certainly is true that the Cook Islands and Niue maintain diplomatic relations with quite a few states, it is done within the parameters permitted by New Zealand, and none of those UN member states that maintain diplomatic relations with the Cook Islands and Niue purport to be recognizing them as separate sovereign states from New Zealand.
While the Cook Islands and Niue are bound by their respective agreements with New Zealand, they carry themselves as if they were sovereign states and are able to enter into "relations" with other sovereign states, so they could be deemed to satisfy the declarative theory of statehood.
I propose that the paragraph be rewritten to read:
What do other editors think? AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 02:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it has to do with "full treaty making capacity" (see List of treaties by number of parties). "The maximum number of state ratifications that a multilateral treaty can have is usually 197; this total consists of all 193 UN member states; both UN observers, the Holy See and State of Palestine; and the Cook Islands and Niue." Selfstudier ( talk) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
This is not to argue with anybody, but here is one more reliable source supporting their inclusion: "In addition to receiving significant amounts of financial assistance, as well as delegating authority in such areas as monetary policy or defense to their former metropolitan power, the Cook Islanders and Niueans have remained New Zealand citizens, and their territories have remained treated as part of New Zealand for the purpose of obtaining its citizenship. The existence of such arrangements has been a source of confusion. In particular, it has raised the question of the compatibility of free association and shared citizenship with sovereign statehood. This chapter addresses this question and argues that despite their miniscule size and close association with New Zealand, both the Cook Islands and Niue can and should be seen as sovereign states." [15] Ladril ( talk) 22:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
By this source Holy See is the name of the sovereign state and Vatican City is its capital. Delasse ( talk) 11:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe that North and South Korea should be alphabetized standardly (in other words, North Korea by "N", South Korea by "S", rather than both by "K"). This is the order all other "North" and "South" countries take ( North Macedonia, South Africa, South Sudan, South Ossetia). I also think sorting the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of the Congo (DRC by "D" and RotC by "R", rather than both by "C") would be useful. (I initially raised this point at Template talk:Asia topic, where I got some support but was advised to take it here.) AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 04:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Islamic emirate of Afghanistan is the present name for the government of the disputed Afghanistan after the recent power change. It's recognition is partial in global community. If the government in exile Islamic republic of Afghanistan is meant then, does it have enough criterion to be called sovereign state? SrihariPKurudi ( talk) 19:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
According to ISO 3166-1, Palestine, the Cook Islands and Niue are not independent countries. From my understanding, the Cook Islands and Niue are constituent states of New Zealand, they are not fully independent and their citizens are actually New Zealand citizens. Although they enjoyed far more autonomy than other ordinary dependent territories and can cast votes independently within the United Nations System just like any other country, they are not technically fully sovereign states. As for Palestine, it is a sovereign political entity which has limited control over their claimed territory. For comparison, it is an entity sitting somewhere between the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (a sovereign entity with no control over any territory) and the Holy See (a sovereign entity with absolute control over a defined territory which makes it a fully sovereign state).
In my point of view, only political entities which tick all the boxes could attain the status of a sovereign state and we should place all three of the above-mentioned entities under the "Other states" section, together with those partially recognized states. 2001:8003:9008:1301:F0D6:2B9B:76:77AE ( talk) 08:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Observer states should not be grouped together with UN member states, instead they should be included in other states. Palestine is much closer in sovereignty status to Kosovo than to a UN member state. -- Somerby ( talk) 10:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
This edit altered long standing text "Israel exerts strong control over the territory" to "Israel controls to some degree.." I amended the dilution to "Israel occupies..", which is actually the clearest explanation of the degree of control. This has been reverted here with edit summary "not everyone agrees that Gaza is occupied (rather than put under siege/blockade)" but the lead for Gaza states "Despite the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the United Nations, international human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators consider the territory to be still occupied by Israel" so this reason for reverting is incorrect. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I suggest this solution to our Afghanistan problem:
I have some comments to make.
I actually think it is probably a violation of WP:WEIGHT for us to accept the Taliban flag and nomenclature for Afghanistan, given that they are not recognised as legitimate internationally. However, the issues at stake are exactly the same as at Afghanistan, and I see no value in rediscussing the point at every article independently.
I would note that the argument that the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is still the UN member is irrelevant to the choice of name and flag because this is not Member states of the United Nations.
It seems to me that the presence or absence of a government in exile is not the relevant point, it is whether an alternative government is recognised. In this case, it is not obvious that the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan still exists even as a government-in-exile. But, whether it exists or not, it is recognised by countries throughout the world and is represented at the UN, so it needs to be mentioned.
I will WP:BOLDly implement this suggestion in the article, but I have no doubt that people will continue to change it. I think changes need to be discussed here, rather than just with drive-by edits. I note that it is not immediately obvious what the current standing consensus is, since the article has not really been stable since the Fall of Kabul. But I suspect that it still refers to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Kahastok talk 11:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Svito3. If you revert per WP:BRD then you need to join the discussion. If you are not prepared to discuss your objection, then don't revert.
The claim in this edit summary, "we specificially list states as recognized by UN: note is sufficent" is factually wrong.
First, the UN does not recognise states at all. It recognises governments of states that have been accepted for membership.
Second, no part of our inclusion criteria or other descriptions of this list requires that we use the flag and name preferred by the current UN delegation. There are several instances where we differ from the UN in this area. And that's before we start discussing the 13 entities listed here that are not UN member states, and 11 that are also not UN observer states.
If you're looking for the list of UN member states, you can find it at member states of the United Nations.
Because of this, using the old flag and name with a footnote, The United Nations currently recognizes the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as the government of Afghanistan instead of the de facto ruling government is unacceptable to me. The fact that the UN recognises the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan does not explain why we would list it here, when even our own article Afghanistan uses the Taliban name and flag. Kahastok talk 16:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Where obviously "insert text here" is replaced with an appropriate and sourced description for the situation, and the header footnotes are not removed. |
Gonna be WP:BOLD and acknowledge the status of the IEA in the notes column; i think this is the best option as the IRA is still recognized by the UN and the table does mention UN member states, but it is critical for accuracy's sake that the IEA is acknowledged. WittyWidi ( talk) 21:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
It is written that Taiwan is an observer in World Health Organization under the name "Chinese Taipei". But in reality the government of Taiwan was only allowed to participate as an observer from 2009 to 2016, but has not been invited again since: Timsit, Anabel; Hui, Mary (16 May 2020). "Taiwan's status could disrupt the most important global health meeting of this pandemic". Quartz. Archived from the original on 6 June 2020. Retrieved 6 June 2020.. Thus if there is no objection I will remove this claim from the article. -- Somerby ( talk) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
it's the more common name for the region/nation/whatever you call it — Preceding unsigned comment added by H. Iristine ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Unless we're declaring that the UN is the sole decider of the content of this article? The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is a fact, where's the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan no longer exists. We should be reflecting what is, not what the UN wants. GoodDay ( talk) 21:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 13:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
List of sovereign states → List of countries – The definitions of country, nation and state are often controversial, somehow arbitrary, but not all countries are sovereign states (and viceversa). The current naming convention is countries (e.g. Lists of countries, Category:Lists of countries, Lists of countries and territories), which I consider to be more appropriate. Therefore, in accordance with the applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topics, I propose to rename this page List of countries, which is currently a redirect. Thanks in advance, Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 08:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
These two entities have been brought up ad nauseam, but especially given recent developments, I figure they deserve a closer look. There's two things I think are worth examining:
1: The prospect of Russian recognition. The Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR) are currently only recognized by each other (which is irrelevant) and by South Ossetia, itself not recognized by the UN or most nations. But recently, Russia's legislature passed a law that recognizes Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states. The law has not taken effect yet, since President Vladimir Putin has yet to sign or veto the law. But in the very possible scenario that the law is signed (or the legislature overrides a Putin veto), would that not be sufficient to consider adding both entities to the list of non-UN states? They'd be the only entities recognized by any UN member state not considered by this article to be sovereign states (except the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which controls and claims literally no territory).
2: A source discussing the Montevideo declarative theory of statehood. Previous attempts to add Donetsk and Luhansk to the list of sovereign states were shot down because no academic or otherwise reliable source described either entity as specifically qualifying as de facto states under the declarative theory of statehood. However, a 2020 issue of the Washington University Global Studies Law Review (more specifically pages 13-21) explicitly examines whether Donetsk or Luhansk meet the declarative theory of statehood set up by the Montevideo Convention. Here is what the source concludes regarding the four criteria, though if you're curious for context you can read it yourself:
The source concludes that "the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples' Republics plausibly meet the Montevideo criteria for statehood" (bold emphasis mine). Some of the language used is definitive, particularly for criteria 1 and 3, but clearly there is room for interpretation with the wording used. Still, I would argue that the source makes clear that Donetsk and Luhansk qualify as de facto sovereign states under the Montevideo declarative theory of statehood, and that their inclusion into this article should at least be reconsidered.
Also, given the recent growing intensity of the information war of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict and the timing of this post, I should probably add that for anyone concerned, I'm not pro-Russia, and I think that the separatists are repressive, illegal, warmongering Russian proxies that do not speak for the people of Donetsk or Luhansk. AxolotlsAreCool ( talk) 05:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
three other territories that have unilaterally declared independence and are generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria for statehood but have not been recognized by any states: Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland.
Kosovo should be moved to the main list, the one that has Israel, North and South Korea and the like. This is because reliable sources are unanimous in their verdict that Kosovo is a fully fledged sovereign state. Own flag, own anthem, own custom, one control of 100% of territory. Recognized by majority of UN. So all that is required is a purple tag saying "partially unrecognized" to show Serbia's disapproval (and its backer Russia, I don't think there are any important countries that don't recognize Kosovo). -- Thelostranger ( talk) 16:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Kosovo is not UN member state Rafael Ronen 17:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
We will do a test. When a country meets all of the above, they can be in category 1 as top level sovereign. If you have less than six, you are not sovereign. If you have between six and eleven (out of twelve), you can be in a "mid-table". Reckon we can use this to get a wider consensus? Thelostranger ( talk) 13:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
PS. About the list I created, just to prove I am not an anti-Serb (as Serbia would not qualify as "sovereign" since it claims Kosovo but doesn't control it). To be fair to Serbia and to Serbs, by admitting Kosovo as sovereign, we as a result will carve out Serbia's true shape thus saving it from demotion. -- Thelostranger ( talk) 13:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
PS. Palestine would be knocked out of the new list. Basically sovereign would mean: The UN, the Vatican & The Republic of Kosovo (195 countries of the world is highly sourced). Thelostranger ( talk) 13:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
At Talk:List of states with limited recognition#Niue, Cook Islands there is a discussion of the apparent contradiction of these two being included here as sovereign states (Other states) but not included there. It seems that they should both be included (my preference based on a Duck test) or both excluded (the argument being that no-one really knows their status). Selfstudier ( talk) 10:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I have initiated an RFC at List of states with limited recognition about this issue. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
List of countries in 2006 and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 28#List of countries in 2006 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Tartar
Torte
16:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Türkiye Cumhuriyeti başkanı Recep Tayyip Erdoğan fotoğrafı yerine Mustafa Kemal Atatürkün fotoğrafını nasıl ekleriz 38.10.69.123 ( talk) 21:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
The "Claimed by" template doesn't seem to work for Ukraine in the Luhansk and Donetsk PR row. Wcdowchb ( talk) 03:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
FYI after Türkiye case: Where WIKI COMMONNAME does not match official ISO or UN short name
Wiki Common name | Short name | ISO or UN |
---|---|---|
The Bahamas | Bahamas (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Bolivia | Bolivia (Plurinational State of) | [ISO + UN] |
Brunei | Brunei Darussalam | [ISO + UN] |
Cape Verde | Cabo Verde | [ISO + UN] |
Central African Republic | Central African Republic (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Comoros | Comoros (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Democratic Republic of the Congo | Congo (the Democratic Republic of the) | [ISO] |
Democratic Republic of the Congo (the) | [UN] | |
Republic of the Congo | Congo (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Czech Republic | Czechia | [ISO + UN] |
Kingdom of Denmark | Denmark | [ISO + UN] |
Dominican Republic | Dominican Republic (the) | [ISO + UN] |
East Timor | Timor-Leste | [ISO + UN] |
The Gambia | Gambia (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Iran | Iran (Islamic Republic of) | [ISO + UN] |
Ivory Coast | Côte d'Ivoire | [ISO + UN] |
North Korea | Korea (the Democratic People's Republic of) | [ISO] |
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (the) | [UN] | |
South Korea | Korea (the Republic of) | [ISO] |
Republic of Korea (the) | [UN] | |
Laos | Lao People's Democratic Republic (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Marshall Islands | Marshall Islands (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Federated States of Micronesia | Micronesia (Federated States of) | [ISO + UN] |
Moldova | Moldova (the Republic of) | [ISO] |
Republic of Moldova (the) | [UN] | |
Kingdom of the Netherlands | Netherlands (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Niger | Niger (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Palestine | Palestine, State of | [ISO] |
State of Palestine (the) | [UN] | |
Philippines | Philippines (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Russia | Russian Federation (the) | [ISO + UN] |
São Tomé and Príncipe | Sao Tome and Principe | [ISO + UN] |
Sudan | Sudan (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Syria | Syrian Arab Republic (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Tanzania | Tanzania, the United Republic of | [ISO] |
United Republic of Tanzania (the) | [UN] | |
Turkey | Türkiye | [UN] |
United Arab Emirates | United Arab Emirates (the) | [ISO + UN] |
United Kingdom | United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the) | [ISO + UN] |
United States | United States of America (the) | [ISO + UN] |
Venezuela | Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) | [ISO + UN] |
Vietnam | Viet Nam | [ISO + UN] |
Chrz ( talk) 17:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Do you think maybe that note should be updated as more and more places are using Czechia like I dunno the UN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.106.172 ( talk) 22:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
the note says it has no recognition from any other state but the foreign relations of Taiwan page says that Taiwan recognizes it. So which one is it? Masterball2 ( talk) 07:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)