![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Just to play devil's advocate here, the CI's constitution was ammended in 1981 [1] to add: "There shall be a sovereign Parliament for the Cook Islands, to be called the Parliament of the Cook Islands", which is a pretty strong argument that the CI claim to be sovereign. However, I feel this is more an example of how our inclusion critera doesn't accurately reflect the title of the article, than a reason for inclusion of the CI. Perhaps the list could be moved to a more easily quantifiable title, such as List of internationally recognized states or something along those lines, as opposed to the inherently vauge "sovereign states". The international recognition could be based upon UN recognition (Member States + Non-Member States) while moving "Other states" to List of states with limited recognition, which we essentially duplicate anyways, with a brief comment and link. Alternatively we could list all states which are recognized by at least one foreign state. This would eliminate the need for us to establish our own inclusion criteria (which seems rather WP:ORish to me). Just a suggestion. Not sure if this has been discussed before. TDL ( talk) 09:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[5] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
(outdent) Professor Alain Pellet, a member and former President of the International Law Commission, just released a legal opinion which stated that it is not absurd to think that Palestine is a State within the general and usual meaning of the term. [2] The PNA already engages in foreign relations as the government of the State of Palestine:
In 1950 a suggestion was made that UN membership be adopted as a form of legal collective recognition, but the Secretary-General and Legal Affairs section advised that such a measure would require the adoption of an amendment to the UN Charter. See pages 39-48 of Statehood and the law of self-determination, By David Raič, Kluwer Law International, 2002, ISBN: 904111890X. The UN Charter contains no agreed upon definition of the term state. As result there is no such thing as UN recognition of statehood. Professor Alain Pellet recently noted that the ICJ has not been asked to recognize a state of Kosovo, only if its unilateral declaration of independence is in accordance with international law. [8]
In 1948, Syria proposed that an advisory opinion be obtained from the ICJ regarding Israel's statehood. Abba Eban pointed out that the UN had no such authority: "The act of determining whether a certain political unit is a State or not is known in international law as an act of recognition; and under the Charter, no Member State has surrendered to the United Nations or to any organ thereof its unlimited sovereignty to regard a political unit as a State. See the minutes of the 340th meeting of the UN Security Council, S/PV.340, 27 July 1948, page 12 [9] The fact that the United Nations does not play a direct role in the recognition of states has been discussed on the Palestine and State Of Palestiine talk pages. Israeli legal expert Ruth Lapidoth explained that "it is not the UN's role, much less that of the Security Council, to confer statehood." See Lieberman warns against '67 borders, By Tovah Lazaroff, Jerusalem Post, November 14, 2009. In the Kosovo case the US argued that it was doubtful that Security Council resolutions were binding on non-state actors like Kosovo and that its statehood was inevitable because it had been recognized by 48 other countries. [10]
Bengt Broms has served as a Judge with the Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the ICC Court of Arbitration in Paris. He says that the record shows that, although statehood is a condition of membership in the United Nations, the fulfillment of that condition has never been a guarantee of admission. A candidate must fulfill the additional criteria set out in Article 4(1) of the UN Charter. He says in view of this it is clear that as the Members of the United Nations are not required to reveal the reasons for their negative votes, such a vote does not indicate that a candidate does not fulfill the requirements of statehood. The negative outcome of a vote may just as well result from the conclusion that, although an applicant is a State, it may not be peace loving or it may not fulfill the other requirements. See International law: achievements and prospects UNESCO Series, Mohammed Bedjaoui editor, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, ISBN 9231027166, page 47 [11]
Conversely many entities have been admitted as members of the United Nations while they were colonies (India), mandates (Syria and Lebanon), or not considered independent Philippines, Belorus, and Ukraine. The same holds true today for the so-called micro-states. Philip Jessup served as a representative of the United States to the United Nations and as a Judge on the International Court of Justice. During the Security Council hearings regarding Israel's application for membership in the UN, he said:
[W]e already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State. We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one's own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership.... ...The reason for which I mention the qualification of this aspect of the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law." See page 12 of S/PV.383, 2 December 1948
harlan ( talk) 19:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) You imply that recognition plays no role under the declaratory theory. The United States is a signatory of the Montevideo Convention, but the Foreign Relations Law of the United States says that determinations regarding the existence of states are normally made by other states when they decide to treat an entity as a state. The fact that recognition is politically motivated does not alter its legal effects. The lawmakers in western societies are usually politicians, and recognition is a political prerogative. The UNESCO volume on international law that I cited above says that the criteria for recognition of statehood is mainly political, not legal. That is a significant viewpoint that ought to be mentioned in the article. As for "limited recognition" the article needs to mention the fact that many states no longer practice recognition, and that the lack of diplomatic relations does not mean that states do not recognize an entity as another state. P.S. The Foreign Relations Law of the United States does not require a state to actually engage in foreign relations, merely that it have the capacity to do so. harlan ( talk) 17:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the current set-up gives us a wonderfully useful article. It reflects both the CTS and the DTS. It gives the criteria commonly cited under CTS, and lists all entities in the world which are generally seen to fulfil these criteria, something which is a verifiable fact. And it divides up the states according to recognition, something which the CTS does not care about, but the DTS does. So we have everything in one comprehensive article. I really think that the spirit of WP:IAR applies here: doing away with this article, even if it is not perfect with respect to WP:SYN, would be a disservice to the encyclopaedia and its readers. sephia karta | dimmi 14:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Now that the inclusion criteria has actually come into question, I'm going to mention a change I'd like to see made. In the text of the inclusion criteria, should it not use the "declarative theory of statehood", rather than the "Montevideo Convention"? I realise the two are basically the same, so it wouldn't affect the criteria. I also realise the benefit—or at least the greater political significance—of using a legally codified source, but the issue is that only a small portion of states (less than 10%) are party to Montevideo; therefore, the inclusion of entries in this list is subject exclusively to the viewpoint of those signatory states (none of which, by the way, are listed on this page). This could be in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I've brought it up recently on this talk page. Night w ( talk) 16:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention did not say that a state should be "sovereign", that the government had to "exercise effective control", or that it had to "engage in foreign relations". Those are non-binding accretions of various publicists that have always been rejected by the PCIJ, the ICJ, and many of the signatories - including the United States. Both Courts have ruled that states can exist for very long periods of time without a government that exercises effective control, without a well defined territory, and (as a consequence) without an agreed upon body comprising the permanent population.
The ICJ explained that in the North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark) proceedings (joined with North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands) on 26 April 1968). It said
There is for instance no rule that the land frontiers of a State must be fully delimited and defined, and often in various places and for long periods they are not, as is shown by the case of the entry of Albania into the League of Nations (Monastery of Saint Naoum, Advisor): Opinion, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 9, at p. 10). [13]
Between 1912 and 1920, the government of Albania did not exercise effective control, had no defined territory, and there was no agreement as to whether or not the Serb and Greek communities and their armed forces were part of the permanent population, occupying powers, or residents of a neighboring territory. The PCIJ opinion said:
Albania, which had in the first place been established as a principality under the sovereignty of the Prince of Wied, became a Republic in 1914; but the Great War prevented the complete fixing of the frontiers of the new State, which was also invaded by the belligerent armies. When the Peace Conference met at Paris in 1919, it considered that it was competent to deal with the Albanian question amongst others. From 1920 onwards, Albania entered into relations with the League of Nations, to which it asked to be admitted. This request was granted by a decision taken by the Assembly of the League of Nations in December 1920. The Resolution regarding its admittance expressly reserved the question of the settlement of the frontiers of the new Member State. Having been admitted to the League of Nations, Albania brought before the Council the question of the evacuation of its territory — as fixed by the Conference of London of 1913—by the Serbian and Greek troops. This question made urgent that of the settlement of the frontiers; for Serbia and Greece maintained that the Principal Powers were alone competent to deal with the latter," whereas Albania contended that the League of Nations, as successor to the European concert of nations, should possess this competence. The Assembly of the League of Nations, however, by its unanimous vote of October 2nd, 1921, left the task of settling the Albanian frontiers to the Principal Powers, recommending Albania to accept then and there the forthcoming decision of the Powers on this subject. [14]
Notwithstanding all of that, Wikipedia has an article which says Albania proclaimed its independence and was established in 1912. harlan ( talk) 14:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm finding some pretty big gaps in consistency when it comes to lists of this subject–specifically in regard to unrecognised states. If there is a List of sovereign states by ..., then shouldn't it be that whatever entries are displayed here, are also mirrored on the rest? It just seems a bit confusing–not to mention (in my opinion) majorly biased. I'm currently looking at List of state leaders by date, where editors have selected some unrecognised states to include, but not all. Is there any way to make this list used as a "template" when it comes to lists of this kind? Night w ( talk) 19:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear Admin: Since the article is protected, please change the last line of the South Ossetia section of Other states from:
to:
to reflect the move of the relevant material from the South Ossetia article to an independent article. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 02:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Since all states that are included in the additional list at the end are put in the main table, I see no reason to remove Taiwan. Please give a reason why Taiwan and not the other states should be removed. Griffinofwales ( talk) 11:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Claimed in whole by the Republic of Georgia as the Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia.[48]
I don't know if this a copypasta mistake but I presume this should say it is claimed by Georgia under the exile Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. Urpunkt ☎ 02:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
What are the guidelines for listing languages under states for this list? I'm not sure if it is consistent and I see some editor saying one thing while others say differently. Does anyone know which is which? Outback the koala ( talk) 20:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
For state listings like Sierra Leone, do we have to specify English underneath? It seems unnecessary, I would prefer to have that removed leaving only other languages listed, as is the case, for example, with Spain currently. Outback the koala ( talk) 04:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I just realized, seeing this that the heading for the table does in fact say "Name in English and the official languages of the state". Maybe we should revisit this. Perhaps it would be simpler to indicate when English is an official language without duplicating the whole state name. In addition, I would say the USA is an exception as it lacks any federally recognized language. I can see that the inclusion of a major minority language can be a real sticking point - I've seen removals over the last few weeks ad nausium (all rvted by editors, fear not!) - so we should we should really indicate when we use a major minority language that does not have official status in that state. (Take a look at Hungary for an example where we list German or Slovakia where we list Hungarian, respectively) Or maybe an option might be to not include them at all? Thoughts? Outback the koala ( talk) 06:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
For the inclusion in this list, there should be some usage of the terms in official publications (no matter if the language is an official language in the country of in a region of it, or a world language, like English). Without official usage (in some official publications), this page will becomes a collection of unreliable and irrelevant translations of official names, done by Wikipedia users, and that's not acceptable. Alefbe ( talk) 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
What is the percentage cut-off? Griffinofwales ( talk) 16:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
...all 193 widely recognised sovereign states...? 193? All except for Taipei? -- Chargin' Chuck ( talk) 18:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The Republic of Lakota claims independence from the US and a few countries are actually considering recognizing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.15.206 ( talk) 22:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the balance of reliable sources strongly points towards "Lebanese Republic" as the long form name. See my remarks at Talk:Lebanon#Long form name. john k ( talk) 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I refer to the UK entry and the text reading:
"Irish: Ríocht Aontaithe na Breataine Móire agus Thuaisceart Éireann Scots: Unitit Kinrick o Great Breetain an Northren Ireland Cornish: Ruwvaneth Unys Breten Veur hag Iwerdhon Gledh"
On what basis are these languages listed? English is the only language official in all parts of the UK. Walsh has official status in Wales ... but the others - they probably enjoy less 'official' status than, for example, Basque or Catalan in Spain...but yet they are listed....This seems inconsistent and misleading. They are not official languages in the UK. Recognition as national minority languages or some such for the purposes of an EU charter (like Basque or Catalan and others) does not make them official languages...They may become official languages in the futhre. Notably, there is a campaign in Northern Ireland to make Irish an official language but that is crystal ball stuff. Please can we reach a consensus to remove these entries. We could discuss also whether and on what basis 'Walsh' should be listed. The discussion should take place in the context of the criteria generally applied to all countries - not just the UK. So, for example, it would be inappropriate to treat UK different to Spain etc. Thanks. 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 19:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
(1) It is nonsense to say the USA does not have an official language. In the same way it would be nonsense to say that UK does not have a constitution. The UK does not have a written constitution. The US does not have anything which written down as its offical language but English is its official language. (2) You refer to "significant minority" languages as being a criteria for inclusion but the list absolutely does not reflect that. The list includes languages like "Cornish" but ignores "Urdu" (in the case of the United Kingdom). How is this so? Far, far more people speak Urdu than Cornish (an extinct language). You have completely left that point unaddressed. (3) Re. "Just as it's really impossible to come up with any criteria for what dependent entities to include (other than eliminating all of them) that are 100% clear and consistent, so, too, it's not really possible to come up with some sort of language list that is completely acceptable for every country." That simply is not true. There are no states that I am aware of that we could not identify their official language. Please name one (your USA example, being, as I say, not according with basic facts). (4) Re. "Wikipedia's tried and true method of discussion and consensus-building is really the best means available." Absolutely, I agree. Hence this why this discussion could be very worthwhile. Finally, I note you are a linguist. But clearly, what should be relevant here is law - what are the national official languages of the states concerned. That should be the criteria. Other views? 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 20:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
It is absolute nonsense to say English is not an official language in the UK or US. You are each totally ignoring that the UK has an unwritten constitution. Aspects of the US constitution are not written too. Even if you refuse to accept my clear criteria - there is no reason why the fact that these are the official languages of these states withouth being prescribed in any law as being official cannot be noted in the notes to the page. BritishWatcher - Your comment above is pretty disappointing - You 'knock-off' Cornish leaving Irish and "Scots" and ignore that Urdu and Chinese and Hindi and Polish are "major minority languages" in the UK. The inclusion of languages should be according to a criteria. Currently, it is based on willy nilly nonsense. 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 07:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I note that no one supports introducing criteria for the inclusion of languages in the list. Accepting that that is the position, it comes down to looking at individual entries and seeing if they are reasonably ok. One entry that seems really out-of-order at the moment is the entry for the Philippines. Please see Languages of the Philippines. There are many languages that are very widely spoken by many of its 93 plus million population - far more widely spoken than, say, "Hawaian" (listed for the USA) or "Irish" (listed for the UK). How are we to determined which of the Philippines' langauges should be listed? Should all of its 120 languages be listed (that seems like it would be a bit excessive)? Should only those languages spoken by a certain percentage or more (% to be discussed) be included? Or should we simply take some sort of inconsistent approach and refuse to list any of the Philippines' languages other than legally official languages? Finally, why is Spanish listed for the Philippines (I don't believe it is official or that it is spoken by significant numbers there or that it is indigenous either). Thanks. 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 06:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it would help us develop more consistency as regards which languages to include / exclude if we discuss the criteria (hope thats not a dirty word around here) on which decisions are made, so here goes (this list may grow - feel free to add to it)
If the answer is known straight off - a simple "Yes" or "No" would suffice in response. Where the position is not clear, lets discuss. Of course, there usually are exceptions too and we can discuss those also. Lets take the mystery out of this process - there should be no need to "read tea leaves" to decipher which language is apt. for inclusion and which are not. Thanks. 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 22:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
and beyond that, the entries are subject to discussion etc (see his post above). The above criteria are so unclear as to be unsusable. User Taivo - Please could you respond to the specific questions set out above or elaborate on what you mean by this 5 point cirtieria. Although, I will largely be repeating the questions set out above, I will point out further where/why the above "criteria" (if it could be called that) is inadequate:
This problem will not have a one-size-fits-all solution. But for Europe we can use one tool to make selection a little easier - the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Inclusion on this Charter means that the government of the respective country has specifically recognised a certain language as a regional or minority language of that country. Cornish should be included because it is recognised under that charter by the government. Chinese, Urdu, etc, while I fully accept there are more speakers of those language in the UK than Cornish, are not languages native to the state nor legally recognised languages of the state. Similarly, English is spoken by millions in China, more than some of China's minority languages, but it is not a language legally recognised by the Chinese government. While English is not legally recognised as an official language in the UK, common sense would require its inclusion. -- Joowwww ( talk) 11:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I note that under the entries for France, the United Kingdom and some other countries, there are lengthy lists with flags of sub-national autonomous territories or some such. Is the criteria for listing of these territories set out anywhere? It looks to me like there is no agreed criteria and that territories are being listed in a ‘willy-nilly’ manner. Examples of what I see as inconsistencies are:
Ideally, from this discussion, I would like an agreed criteria covering inclusion of sub-national territories and inclusion (or exclusion) of their respective flags to emerge. Thanks. 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 20:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Got to go with Orange's assessment. External dependencies need to be listed, as they're what you'd find in any reputable "list of countries". Autonomies are listed because they have a special status in a given unitary state. In federations, we've listed the number of federated states, which are constitutionally equal within the union—so there's no need for listing them individually. My preference would be to get rid of the two Chilean "seamounts" and San Andrés. And add the autonomies you've mentioned. The Russian subjects could pose a problem. I don't see a reason for removing the flags, as long as they have official status. Night w ( talk) 06:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The lazy approach with low standards is winning out here....providing objective criteria against which future editors could identify whether other entries should be seems entirely apt. and not in any way impossible - yes each state has a different legal set up - but that does not prohibit setting up decent criteria. Instead, what we will really have is what Orange originally suggested - we will list what readers might some how expect us to list...the lowest common denominator...no great minds at work here...but i am outnumbered and put off by the low standard prevailing here. 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 23:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Clearly the flag of each sovereign state is included on the list. However, after that, there are many other flags included - and there seems to be no consistency as to which flags merit inclusion. Are there any agreed rules concerning this? Two (of many) examples are (1) PR China - The flags of none of the five autonomous regions are included but the flags of the special administrative regions are; (2) Belgium/UK - The flags of Flanders/Wallonia/Brussels are not included yet the flags of England/Scotland and Wales are...Why so? Can we set out criteria? 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 23:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Name in English, the official languages and major minority languages of the state | Information on status and recognition of sovereignty |
---|---|
| |
![]() |
Widely recognized member of the UN. As a result of the Dayton Agreement between Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina is divided into two constituent units: Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska. [1] |
| |
![]()
|
Widely recognized member of the UN. Georgia has two divisions with autonomous statuses: Adjara and Abkhazia. [2] In Abkhazia and South Ossetia (a former autonomous entity) de facto states inside the de jure territory of Georgia have been formed. |
| |
![]()
|
Widely recognized member of the UN and the EU. [3] Portugal has two autonomous regions: Azores and Madeira. Portugal does not recognize Spanish sovereignty over Olivenza and Táliga. |
| |
![]()
|
Widely recognized member of the UN. Serbia considers itself to have two autonomous provinces: Kosovo and Metohija and Vojvodina. [2] Most of Kosovo is under the de facto control of the Republic of Kosovo, which does not have general recognition. |
| |
![]() |
Widely recognized member of the UN. Ukraine has one autonomous republic: Crimea. [2] |
| |
![]()
|
Widely recognized member of the
UN and the
EU.
[3] The United Kingdom is a
Commonwealth realm
[4] consisting of
four countries:
England,
Northern Ireland
Scotland,
Wales. The United Kingdom has the following overseas territories:
The British Monarch has direct sovereignty over three self-governing Crown dependencies: |
| |
![]()
|
Widely recognized member of the UN. Uzbekistan has one autonomous republic: Karakalpakstan. [2] |
| |
![]() |
A state competing for recognition with the People's Republic of China as the government of China since 1949. The Republic of China controls the island of Taiwan and associated islands, Quemoy, Matsu, the Pratas and part of the Spratly Islands [8], and has not renounced claims over the territory of the PRC and Mongolia. [9] The Republic of China is currently recognised by including the Holy See. The territory of the Republic of China is claimed in whole by the People's Republic of China. [10] The Republic of China participates in the World Health Organization and a number of non-UN international organizations such as the World Trade Organization, International Olympic Committee and others under a variety of pseudonyms, most commonly Chinese Taipei. |
|
Taivo - Re. "It's a great example of what we've been talking about with the anon IP--one size cannot fit all etc". Your logic is that a "dumb" reader will expect to see certain flags listed and so the list must reflect that....That is not objective criteria. It means the list is devoid of integrity. Yes, one size can certainly fit all - objective criteria applied consistently. See my very logical and objective criteria listed below. In contrast, you offer no criteria for the list or any way to give the list any integrity. 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 19:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we try to set down clean, objective criteria by which we can decide questions concerning which flags to be included rather than arbitrarily deciding every time. In this section we could set out our proposed criteria. The following is my prosal. 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I propose that the only flags that should be included in the list are:
(1) the flags of the widely recognised states (no change)
(2) the flags of the partially recognised states (no change)
(3) the flags of the Non-Self Governing Territories (as listed by the United Nations) [15]. This would mean several flags would be dropped but it would mean that the list would have (1) integrity; and (2) consistency. The following are the list of the flags that would then fall to be included (all of which arae on the list at present):
AFRICA 1. Western Sahara
ATLANTIC AND CARIBBEAN
2. Anguilla
3. Bermuda
4. British Virgin Islands
5. Cayman Islands
6. Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
7. Montserrat
8. St. Helena
9. Turks and Caicos Islands
10. United States Virgin Islands
EUROPE
11. Gibraltar
PACIFIC AND INDIAN OCEANS
12. American Samoa
13. Guam
14. New Caledonia
15. Pitcairn
16. Tokelau
Is there any support or other views on the above as a criteria? 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 19:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, the anonymous IP above is possibly a sock of a banned user. -- Taivo ( talk) 15:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a right not to create an account here....This is most unfair. I am not a sock and what on earth have I done wrong...I have promoted worthwhile discussion. I even helped get a conensus on the Talk: Kosovo-note template (the use of which they are listing as a reason for banning me!). Please help! What edits have I done wrong...now you are trying to say I am a sock - On what basis? Why do you say that? YOu have no right to just sling allegations around. I have a right to be an IP editor....every one in the world can see my IP address....I am not an "anon sock". You should prove it if you are trying to just drum up noise to get me banned! I never attack any editor personally and look at me now, you and a few others on that page appear intent on getting me banned. 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 21:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Throughout the article countries in the EU and Commonwealth Realms are mentioned as such. Would there be objections to adding other important (Flexibly groups that have played a large role diplomatically/economically/regionally) international groups? I personally was thinking of the Arab League and ASEAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipmunkdavis ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
How did only IANVS catch that? My deepest apologies for that freudian slip. I agree with BritishWatcher that we need a list before we add. Personally I dont think that the AU should be added, it hasn't achieved much at all, not even basic economic integration among all its member states. I suggest ASEAN, CARICOM, MERCOSUR, and the Andean Community. The last 3 have introduced common passports, and ASEAN has a common economic area and a free trade zone which includes China. Furthermore, there is no overlap between these, if that matters. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 20:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Just from reading the discussion so-far, I'm thinking this would probably cause a bit more trouble than it's worth. It seems like selection would be based on arbitrary picking and choosing. I agree with Taivo that there is an essential quality that the EU has that sets it apart from ordinary international institutions, thereby making it necessary of mention. And as for the Commonwealth, as Orange said, we don't mention membership to the Commonwealth of Nations. A state's status as a Commonwealth realm is a constitutional status —it's not an IGO, so it can't be used as stare decisis in this proposal. Night w ( talk) 04:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Understood. Will leave it as is for now, and will wait for organisations (UNASUR, EAC) to do a bit more then, for now. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 20:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is the description of Palau Micronesia and the Marshall Islands as associated states of the USA important? Just wondering :) Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 20:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that, to my knowledge, Rotuma is not a country (in the sense of polity, dependency, etc.) separate from Fiji. I'm aware that it is not one of the listed provinces of Fiji, but I don't believe it has autonomous status either. Sources are very scant but I found this one: http://books.google.com/books?id=B9Qww9fVkGIC&pg=PA239&lpg=PA239&dq=rotuma+free+association&source=bl&ots=yyE_6WYTgQ&sig=3SMYyQfkQjvX_1i8WK5wqfY9LPA&hl=en&ei=bIE3TPWxF8G88gaD2OSmBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rotuma%20free%20association&f=false Ladril ( talk) 20:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I've added the islands' special charter. Questioning the origin of long-accepted claims is a very good way to improve the page. However, next time, please use {{ cn}} instead of just changing the statement to something else. Night w ( talk) 05:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi to all. I make little but fundamental changes to the article, concerning the difference between recognized and unrecognized counties.
There was a concept which is in a total contrast with international law: the statement that an unrecognized country would be "de facto independent". This is totally false. According to ius cogens and the main conventional treaties (the Montevideo Convention over all) a state which is de facto independent automaticly beoomes de iure independent and it is recognized by the international community. If a state is unrecognized, this means that general international community considers that it is NOT de facto independent and sovereign, their claimed independence being fictious only. Let's give some exemples. Is South Ossetia de facto independent? No, according to the opinion of the international community, which says (with a low voice, for obvious reasons) that its de facto condition is to be a Russian dependency and, consequently, does not recognize it. The case of Noth Cyprus is ever more clear: there are explicit final judgements by the Concil of Europe which say that NC is de facto a Turkisk province, no differently from Ankara region or Istanbul region.
The writers of this page made an error: they took territory, population and government as sufficient conditions to "NPOVly" describe a de facto independent state (and using international recognition to identify de iure independent states). But this is basicly false. Even the State of Texas has a territory, a population, a government, and a Head of State which owns powers which, in the great majority of the other countries worldwide, belong to the king or the President of the Republic. But, as everyone knows, Texas is not a sovereign state, because it has a sovereign power over it. More than Texas, Portorico does not elect the government of the US but, even with its territory, its population and its government, it is not a sovereign state, being subject to the US. Well, international community says that Northern Cyprus relation with Turkey is de facto the same relation between Portorico and the United States. By the other side, the majority of i.c. says that Kosovo is not de facto independent, but it is de facto a dependency of the US and its allies.
Saying that an unrecognized country would be a de facto sovereign state, would mean not to understand the main reason because it is not recognized.-- 79.54.154.62 ( talk) 15:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The sole NPOV affirmation we can make, is that they claim to be independent.
A separate and unique case is the Taiwan affair (Somaliland effective power outside its "capital" is quite dubious). PR of China (slowly) says that the de facto sovereignty over the island is American. This position is generally considered as a pure political opinion. But the problem of Taiwan is that, differently from what wikipedia uncorrectly says, Taiwan has not diplomatic relation with the greater part of the international community, but it has consular relation with the greater part of the world states (including US, UK, Russia, France, Germsny and Italy). The error here is merging the Taiwan case (which is unique) with the other ones.
A little problem of logic to finish. If I says that A, B and C are red balls, both A, B and C must be red. If even B is green, my sentence is false. Here, we have a list of unrecognized states, and wikipedia is saying that they are de facto independent. But, at least in one case (North Cyprus), official sources say that this is false. So, wikipedia's statement that they are independent, is false, or at least it is in contrast with official sources, so becoming POV. To eliminate this problem I suggest a more NPOV aaffirmation, says that this states claim to be independent. So we would explain thair position, but we would not put wikipedia in opposition with official sources (all positions about the reality, negative of affermative, could be added).--
79.54.154.62 (
talk)
23:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) The article is perfectly accurate as it stands. You have made a very good argument for de jure status (and the court case proves that), but not for de facto status. I have stated that several times already. No other editors are agreeing with you. The article has been through multiple discussions and revisions over the past year in order to reach a stable, consensus-driven, NPOV status. Build a consensus for change, but you have failed to build a consensus at this point. -- Taivo ( talk) 13:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
If I could chip in, the ip seems to be disputing the use of the term "de facto", saying that they are not "de facto" independent from the bigger states around them. However, he confuses the issue of influence and independence. As a fact, Turkey has a great influence in Northern Cyprus, not least because as the only country that recognizes it, it is the only country able to send aid and assist in a diplomatic fashion. Russia and South Ossetia/Abkhazia have the same situation. That does not mean they are not "de facto" independent. Being independent doesn't mean being free from outside influence. For example, would you currently claim that Greece is not "de facto" independent from Germany, as Germany is in a way dictating the way it runs its economical systems? You wouldn't. Influence is not the same as independence, which is the issue at hand. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 22:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC) "
At this point, has the anon IP convinced any of the regular editors of his/her point of view? (Please don't respond here, anon IP, let's leave this just as a simple polling.) -- Taivo ( talk) 17:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
More than mobbing the original poster, let's suggest a source: [26]. See page x of the Foreword, where an explicit definition of a de facto state is made. I do not think the majority is wrong in this case. Ladril ( talk) 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
For translations and transliterations in this list, we are currently using, respectively:
I propose we use instead, a single source:
The UNGEGN document includes both translation and transliteration in the one document and, from what I can tell, we shouldn't need any additional references. It is also undoubtedly more authoratative. Apparently, as it is now, we don't even use the sources we cite, as the CIA renders all their names without macrons (which we include).
I apologise if this makes one too many active discussions on this page. I've had this lined up for a while, and I was waiting for the IP nonsense to end. Night w ( talk) 01:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I've created a diff for review. It's actually a fair bit more substantial than I thought it would be, but most changes are very minor. Entries most significantly affected are listed in the box below. Discussion over these changes should take place at the bottom of this talk page. I will then archive the discussion at Talk:List of sovereign states after its conclusion, as this page will be deleted. Night w ( talk) 12:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Entries affected
|
In addition, some different conventions are applied, the affects of which are visible in the diff.
I've also added {{ cn}} next to entries which are not addressed in the UN source. They are:
Changes that would occur to non-Latin scripts are not shown in the diff, as my browser can't seem to manage a simply copy-paste.
I can find no reason to argue with anything you have done, as it is definitely verifiable and probably right. In terms of your unverifiable ones, I have no idea why fiji has hindu or urdu scripts anyway. In terms of issue one, the current wikipedia page for Myanmar calls it Burma, due to a huge edit war after the monks protest. After the junta elections, there will be another discussion to try and get it changed back to Myanmar. Contentious political issue. As for Macedonia, Macedonia is the short form, and surely the equivalent word is included in the very long UN name? Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 08:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
A single disgruntled anonymous IP with a legalistic point does not justify the disputed fact tag. I have removed it. -- Taivo ( talk) 13:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Your attitude and interventations are flaming a discussion which was fairly started. Please wait some other interventations by users.-- 79.54.154.62 ( talk) 13:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Anon IP, please stop needlessly adding tags to an article that is stable and based on consensus. Establish a consensus for your views without inserting unnecessary and unwarranted tags. -- Taivo ( talk) 15:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a standard for which we put in the administrative divisions? I understand that special administrative divisions are included, and that places like England are included to help the reader. Besides that though, does the article only cover the countries with internal divisions that contain levels of autonomy? (eg. Federations) Including the information of places like Colombia seems to be inconsistent. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 17:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I want to rewrite/reformat this "French sovereignty over Bassas da India, Europa Island and Juan de Nova Island is disputed by Madagascar, over Glorioso Islands by Madagascar, the Seychelles and the Comoros, over Tromelin Island by Mauritius and the Seychelles, and over Banc du Geyser by Madagascar and the Comoros.[7]" to make it more readable in the table format it is in, but cannot figure out how. Would it be better with each dispute taking a different line? Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
"The continent of Antarctica, including its outlying islands south of 60°S, are held in abeyance under the terms of the Antarctic Treaty System. All territorial claims are neither recognised nor disputed. Claimant countries are Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom. There is also an informal Brazilian claim."
This note is incorrect and inconsistent with the article, as far as I can see. Issues:
Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 21:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
autonomous
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).EU
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).realm
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).dis
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).ChinaTaiwan
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Spratly
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Just to play devil's advocate here, the CI's constitution was ammended in 1981 [1] to add: "There shall be a sovereign Parliament for the Cook Islands, to be called the Parliament of the Cook Islands", which is a pretty strong argument that the CI claim to be sovereign. However, I feel this is more an example of how our inclusion critera doesn't accurately reflect the title of the article, than a reason for inclusion of the CI. Perhaps the list could be moved to a more easily quantifiable title, such as List of internationally recognized states or something along those lines, as opposed to the inherently vauge "sovereign states". The international recognition could be based upon UN recognition (Member States + Non-Member States) while moving "Other states" to List of states with limited recognition, which we essentially duplicate anyways, with a brief comment and link. Alternatively we could list all states which are recognized by at least one foreign state. This would eliminate the need for us to establish our own inclusion criteria (which seems rather WP:ORish to me). Just a suggestion. Not sure if this has been discussed before. TDL ( talk) 09:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[5] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
(outdent) Professor Alain Pellet, a member and former President of the International Law Commission, just released a legal opinion which stated that it is not absurd to think that Palestine is a State within the general and usual meaning of the term. [2] The PNA already engages in foreign relations as the government of the State of Palestine:
In 1950 a suggestion was made that UN membership be adopted as a form of legal collective recognition, but the Secretary-General and Legal Affairs section advised that such a measure would require the adoption of an amendment to the UN Charter. See pages 39-48 of Statehood and the law of self-determination, By David Raič, Kluwer Law International, 2002, ISBN: 904111890X. The UN Charter contains no agreed upon definition of the term state. As result there is no such thing as UN recognition of statehood. Professor Alain Pellet recently noted that the ICJ has not been asked to recognize a state of Kosovo, only if its unilateral declaration of independence is in accordance with international law. [8]
In 1948, Syria proposed that an advisory opinion be obtained from the ICJ regarding Israel's statehood. Abba Eban pointed out that the UN had no such authority: "The act of determining whether a certain political unit is a State or not is known in international law as an act of recognition; and under the Charter, no Member State has surrendered to the United Nations or to any organ thereof its unlimited sovereignty to regard a political unit as a State. See the minutes of the 340th meeting of the UN Security Council, S/PV.340, 27 July 1948, page 12 [9] The fact that the United Nations does not play a direct role in the recognition of states has been discussed on the Palestine and State Of Palestiine talk pages. Israeli legal expert Ruth Lapidoth explained that "it is not the UN's role, much less that of the Security Council, to confer statehood." See Lieberman warns against '67 borders, By Tovah Lazaroff, Jerusalem Post, November 14, 2009. In the Kosovo case the US argued that it was doubtful that Security Council resolutions were binding on non-state actors like Kosovo and that its statehood was inevitable because it had been recognized by 48 other countries. [10]
Bengt Broms has served as a Judge with the Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the ICC Court of Arbitration in Paris. He says that the record shows that, although statehood is a condition of membership in the United Nations, the fulfillment of that condition has never been a guarantee of admission. A candidate must fulfill the additional criteria set out in Article 4(1) of the UN Charter. He says in view of this it is clear that as the Members of the United Nations are not required to reveal the reasons for their negative votes, such a vote does not indicate that a candidate does not fulfill the requirements of statehood. The negative outcome of a vote may just as well result from the conclusion that, although an applicant is a State, it may not be peace loving or it may not fulfill the other requirements. See International law: achievements and prospects UNESCO Series, Mohammed Bedjaoui editor, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, ISBN 9231027166, page 47 [11]
Conversely many entities have been admitted as members of the United Nations while they were colonies (India), mandates (Syria and Lebanon), or not considered independent Philippines, Belorus, and Ukraine. The same holds true today for the so-called micro-states. Philip Jessup served as a representative of the United States to the United Nations and as a Judge on the International Court of Justice. During the Security Council hearings regarding Israel's application for membership in the UN, he said:
[W]e already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State. We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one's own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership.... ...The reason for which I mention the qualification of this aspect of the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law." See page 12 of S/PV.383, 2 December 1948
harlan ( talk) 19:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) You imply that recognition plays no role under the declaratory theory. The United States is a signatory of the Montevideo Convention, but the Foreign Relations Law of the United States says that determinations regarding the existence of states are normally made by other states when they decide to treat an entity as a state. The fact that recognition is politically motivated does not alter its legal effects. The lawmakers in western societies are usually politicians, and recognition is a political prerogative. The UNESCO volume on international law that I cited above says that the criteria for recognition of statehood is mainly political, not legal. That is a significant viewpoint that ought to be mentioned in the article. As for "limited recognition" the article needs to mention the fact that many states no longer practice recognition, and that the lack of diplomatic relations does not mean that states do not recognize an entity as another state. P.S. The Foreign Relations Law of the United States does not require a state to actually engage in foreign relations, merely that it have the capacity to do so. harlan ( talk) 17:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the current set-up gives us a wonderfully useful article. It reflects both the CTS and the DTS. It gives the criteria commonly cited under CTS, and lists all entities in the world which are generally seen to fulfil these criteria, something which is a verifiable fact. And it divides up the states according to recognition, something which the CTS does not care about, but the DTS does. So we have everything in one comprehensive article. I really think that the spirit of WP:IAR applies here: doing away with this article, even if it is not perfect with respect to WP:SYN, would be a disservice to the encyclopaedia and its readers. sephia karta | dimmi 14:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Now that the inclusion criteria has actually come into question, I'm going to mention a change I'd like to see made. In the text of the inclusion criteria, should it not use the "declarative theory of statehood", rather than the "Montevideo Convention"? I realise the two are basically the same, so it wouldn't affect the criteria. I also realise the benefit—or at least the greater political significance—of using a legally codified source, but the issue is that only a small portion of states (less than 10%) are party to Montevideo; therefore, the inclusion of entries in this list is subject exclusively to the viewpoint of those signatory states (none of which, by the way, are listed on this page). This could be in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I've brought it up recently on this talk page. Night w ( talk) 16:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention did not say that a state should be "sovereign", that the government had to "exercise effective control", or that it had to "engage in foreign relations". Those are non-binding accretions of various publicists that have always been rejected by the PCIJ, the ICJ, and many of the signatories - including the United States. Both Courts have ruled that states can exist for very long periods of time without a government that exercises effective control, without a well defined territory, and (as a consequence) without an agreed upon body comprising the permanent population.
The ICJ explained that in the North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark) proceedings (joined with North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands) on 26 April 1968). It said
There is for instance no rule that the land frontiers of a State must be fully delimited and defined, and often in various places and for long periods they are not, as is shown by the case of the entry of Albania into the League of Nations (Monastery of Saint Naoum, Advisor): Opinion, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 9, at p. 10). [13]
Between 1912 and 1920, the government of Albania did not exercise effective control, had no defined territory, and there was no agreement as to whether or not the Serb and Greek communities and their armed forces were part of the permanent population, occupying powers, or residents of a neighboring territory. The PCIJ opinion said:
Albania, which had in the first place been established as a principality under the sovereignty of the Prince of Wied, became a Republic in 1914; but the Great War prevented the complete fixing of the frontiers of the new State, which was also invaded by the belligerent armies. When the Peace Conference met at Paris in 1919, it considered that it was competent to deal with the Albanian question amongst others. From 1920 onwards, Albania entered into relations with the League of Nations, to which it asked to be admitted. This request was granted by a decision taken by the Assembly of the League of Nations in December 1920. The Resolution regarding its admittance expressly reserved the question of the settlement of the frontiers of the new Member State. Having been admitted to the League of Nations, Albania brought before the Council the question of the evacuation of its territory — as fixed by the Conference of London of 1913—by the Serbian and Greek troops. This question made urgent that of the settlement of the frontiers; for Serbia and Greece maintained that the Principal Powers were alone competent to deal with the latter," whereas Albania contended that the League of Nations, as successor to the European concert of nations, should possess this competence. The Assembly of the League of Nations, however, by its unanimous vote of October 2nd, 1921, left the task of settling the Albanian frontiers to the Principal Powers, recommending Albania to accept then and there the forthcoming decision of the Powers on this subject. [14]
Notwithstanding all of that, Wikipedia has an article which says Albania proclaimed its independence and was established in 1912. harlan ( talk) 14:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm finding some pretty big gaps in consistency when it comes to lists of this subject–specifically in regard to unrecognised states. If there is a List of sovereign states by ..., then shouldn't it be that whatever entries are displayed here, are also mirrored on the rest? It just seems a bit confusing–not to mention (in my opinion) majorly biased. I'm currently looking at List of state leaders by date, where editors have selected some unrecognised states to include, but not all. Is there any way to make this list used as a "template" when it comes to lists of this kind? Night w ( talk) 19:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear Admin: Since the article is protected, please change the last line of the South Ossetia section of Other states from:
to:
to reflect the move of the relevant material from the South Ossetia article to an independent article. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 02:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Since all states that are included in the additional list at the end are put in the main table, I see no reason to remove Taiwan. Please give a reason why Taiwan and not the other states should be removed. Griffinofwales ( talk) 11:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Claimed in whole by the Republic of Georgia as the Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia.[48]
I don't know if this a copypasta mistake but I presume this should say it is claimed by Georgia under the exile Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. Urpunkt ☎ 02:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
What are the guidelines for listing languages under states for this list? I'm not sure if it is consistent and I see some editor saying one thing while others say differently. Does anyone know which is which? Outback the koala ( talk) 20:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
For state listings like Sierra Leone, do we have to specify English underneath? It seems unnecessary, I would prefer to have that removed leaving only other languages listed, as is the case, for example, with Spain currently. Outback the koala ( talk) 04:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I just realized, seeing this that the heading for the table does in fact say "Name in English and the official languages of the state". Maybe we should revisit this. Perhaps it would be simpler to indicate when English is an official language without duplicating the whole state name. In addition, I would say the USA is an exception as it lacks any federally recognized language. I can see that the inclusion of a major minority language can be a real sticking point - I've seen removals over the last few weeks ad nausium (all rvted by editors, fear not!) - so we should we should really indicate when we use a major minority language that does not have official status in that state. (Take a look at Hungary for an example where we list German or Slovakia where we list Hungarian, respectively) Or maybe an option might be to not include them at all? Thoughts? Outback the koala ( talk) 06:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
For the inclusion in this list, there should be some usage of the terms in official publications (no matter if the language is an official language in the country of in a region of it, or a world language, like English). Without official usage (in some official publications), this page will becomes a collection of unreliable and irrelevant translations of official names, done by Wikipedia users, and that's not acceptable. Alefbe ( talk) 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
What is the percentage cut-off? Griffinofwales ( talk) 16:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
...all 193 widely recognised sovereign states...? 193? All except for Taipei? -- Chargin' Chuck ( talk) 18:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The Republic of Lakota claims independence from the US and a few countries are actually considering recognizing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.15.206 ( talk) 22:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the balance of reliable sources strongly points towards "Lebanese Republic" as the long form name. See my remarks at Talk:Lebanon#Long form name. john k ( talk) 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I refer to the UK entry and the text reading:
"Irish: Ríocht Aontaithe na Breataine Móire agus Thuaisceart Éireann Scots: Unitit Kinrick o Great Breetain an Northren Ireland Cornish: Ruwvaneth Unys Breten Veur hag Iwerdhon Gledh"
On what basis are these languages listed? English is the only language official in all parts of the UK. Walsh has official status in Wales ... but the others - they probably enjoy less 'official' status than, for example, Basque or Catalan in Spain...but yet they are listed....This seems inconsistent and misleading. They are not official languages in the UK. Recognition as national minority languages or some such for the purposes of an EU charter (like Basque or Catalan and others) does not make them official languages...They may become official languages in the futhre. Notably, there is a campaign in Northern Ireland to make Irish an official language but that is crystal ball stuff. Please can we reach a consensus to remove these entries. We could discuss also whether and on what basis 'Walsh' should be listed. The discussion should take place in the context of the criteria generally applied to all countries - not just the UK. So, for example, it would be inappropriate to treat UK different to Spain etc. Thanks. 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 19:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
(1) It is nonsense to say the USA does not have an official language. In the same way it would be nonsense to say that UK does not have a constitution. The UK does not have a written constitution. The US does not have anything which written down as its offical language but English is its official language. (2) You refer to "significant minority" languages as being a criteria for inclusion but the list absolutely does not reflect that. The list includes languages like "Cornish" but ignores "Urdu" (in the case of the United Kingdom). How is this so? Far, far more people speak Urdu than Cornish (an extinct language). You have completely left that point unaddressed. (3) Re. "Just as it's really impossible to come up with any criteria for what dependent entities to include (other than eliminating all of them) that are 100% clear and consistent, so, too, it's not really possible to come up with some sort of language list that is completely acceptable for every country." That simply is not true. There are no states that I am aware of that we could not identify their official language. Please name one (your USA example, being, as I say, not according with basic facts). (4) Re. "Wikipedia's tried and true method of discussion and consensus-building is really the best means available." Absolutely, I agree. Hence this why this discussion could be very worthwhile. Finally, I note you are a linguist. But clearly, what should be relevant here is law - what are the national official languages of the states concerned. That should be the criteria. Other views? 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 20:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
It is absolute nonsense to say English is not an official language in the UK or US. You are each totally ignoring that the UK has an unwritten constitution. Aspects of the US constitution are not written too. Even if you refuse to accept my clear criteria - there is no reason why the fact that these are the official languages of these states withouth being prescribed in any law as being official cannot be noted in the notes to the page. BritishWatcher - Your comment above is pretty disappointing - You 'knock-off' Cornish leaving Irish and "Scots" and ignore that Urdu and Chinese and Hindi and Polish are "major minority languages" in the UK. The inclusion of languages should be according to a criteria. Currently, it is based on willy nilly nonsense. 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 07:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I note that no one supports introducing criteria for the inclusion of languages in the list. Accepting that that is the position, it comes down to looking at individual entries and seeing if they are reasonably ok. One entry that seems really out-of-order at the moment is the entry for the Philippines. Please see Languages of the Philippines. There are many languages that are very widely spoken by many of its 93 plus million population - far more widely spoken than, say, "Hawaian" (listed for the USA) or "Irish" (listed for the UK). How are we to determined which of the Philippines' langauges should be listed? Should all of its 120 languages be listed (that seems like it would be a bit excessive)? Should only those languages spoken by a certain percentage or more (% to be discussed) be included? Or should we simply take some sort of inconsistent approach and refuse to list any of the Philippines' languages other than legally official languages? Finally, why is Spanish listed for the Philippines (I don't believe it is official or that it is spoken by significant numbers there or that it is indigenous either). Thanks. 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 06:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it would help us develop more consistency as regards which languages to include / exclude if we discuss the criteria (hope thats not a dirty word around here) on which decisions are made, so here goes (this list may grow - feel free to add to it)
If the answer is known straight off - a simple "Yes" or "No" would suffice in response. Where the position is not clear, lets discuss. Of course, there usually are exceptions too and we can discuss those also. Lets take the mystery out of this process - there should be no need to "read tea leaves" to decipher which language is apt. for inclusion and which are not. Thanks. 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 22:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
and beyond that, the entries are subject to discussion etc (see his post above). The above criteria are so unclear as to be unsusable. User Taivo - Please could you respond to the specific questions set out above or elaborate on what you mean by this 5 point cirtieria. Although, I will largely be repeating the questions set out above, I will point out further where/why the above "criteria" (if it could be called that) is inadequate:
This problem will not have a one-size-fits-all solution. But for Europe we can use one tool to make selection a little easier - the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Inclusion on this Charter means that the government of the respective country has specifically recognised a certain language as a regional or minority language of that country. Cornish should be included because it is recognised under that charter by the government. Chinese, Urdu, etc, while I fully accept there are more speakers of those language in the UK than Cornish, are not languages native to the state nor legally recognised languages of the state. Similarly, English is spoken by millions in China, more than some of China's minority languages, but it is not a language legally recognised by the Chinese government. While English is not legally recognised as an official language in the UK, common sense would require its inclusion. -- Joowwww ( talk) 11:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I note that under the entries for France, the United Kingdom and some other countries, there are lengthy lists with flags of sub-national autonomous territories or some such. Is the criteria for listing of these territories set out anywhere? It looks to me like there is no agreed criteria and that territories are being listed in a ‘willy-nilly’ manner. Examples of what I see as inconsistencies are:
Ideally, from this discussion, I would like an agreed criteria covering inclusion of sub-national territories and inclusion (or exclusion) of their respective flags to emerge. Thanks. 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 20:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Got to go with Orange's assessment. External dependencies need to be listed, as they're what you'd find in any reputable "list of countries". Autonomies are listed because they have a special status in a given unitary state. In federations, we've listed the number of federated states, which are constitutionally equal within the union—so there's no need for listing them individually. My preference would be to get rid of the two Chilean "seamounts" and San Andrés. And add the autonomies you've mentioned. The Russian subjects could pose a problem. I don't see a reason for removing the flags, as long as they have official status. Night w ( talk) 06:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The lazy approach with low standards is winning out here....providing objective criteria against which future editors could identify whether other entries should be seems entirely apt. and not in any way impossible - yes each state has a different legal set up - but that does not prohibit setting up decent criteria. Instead, what we will really have is what Orange originally suggested - we will list what readers might some how expect us to list...the lowest common denominator...no great minds at work here...but i am outnumbered and put off by the low standard prevailing here. 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 23:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Clearly the flag of each sovereign state is included on the list. However, after that, there are many other flags included - and there seems to be no consistency as to which flags merit inclusion. Are there any agreed rules concerning this? Two (of many) examples are (1) PR China - The flags of none of the five autonomous regions are included but the flags of the special administrative regions are; (2) Belgium/UK - The flags of Flanders/Wallonia/Brussels are not included yet the flags of England/Scotland and Wales are...Why so? Can we set out criteria? 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 23:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Name in English, the official languages and major minority languages of the state | Information on status and recognition of sovereignty |
---|---|
| |
![]() |
Widely recognized member of the UN. As a result of the Dayton Agreement between Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina is divided into two constituent units: Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska. [1] |
| |
![]()
|
Widely recognized member of the UN. Georgia has two divisions with autonomous statuses: Adjara and Abkhazia. [2] In Abkhazia and South Ossetia (a former autonomous entity) de facto states inside the de jure territory of Georgia have been formed. |
| |
![]()
|
Widely recognized member of the UN and the EU. [3] Portugal has two autonomous regions: Azores and Madeira. Portugal does not recognize Spanish sovereignty over Olivenza and Táliga. |
| |
![]()
|
Widely recognized member of the UN. Serbia considers itself to have two autonomous provinces: Kosovo and Metohija and Vojvodina. [2] Most of Kosovo is under the de facto control of the Republic of Kosovo, which does not have general recognition. |
| |
![]() |
Widely recognized member of the UN. Ukraine has one autonomous republic: Crimea. [2] |
| |
![]()
|
Widely recognized member of the
UN and the
EU.
[3] The United Kingdom is a
Commonwealth realm
[4] consisting of
four countries:
England,
Northern Ireland
Scotland,
Wales. The United Kingdom has the following overseas territories:
The British Monarch has direct sovereignty over three self-governing Crown dependencies: |
| |
![]()
|
Widely recognized member of the UN. Uzbekistan has one autonomous republic: Karakalpakstan. [2] |
| |
![]() |
A state competing for recognition with the People's Republic of China as the government of China since 1949. The Republic of China controls the island of Taiwan and associated islands, Quemoy, Matsu, the Pratas and part of the Spratly Islands [8], and has not renounced claims over the territory of the PRC and Mongolia. [9] The Republic of China is currently recognised by including the Holy See. The territory of the Republic of China is claimed in whole by the People's Republic of China. [10] The Republic of China participates in the World Health Organization and a number of non-UN international organizations such as the World Trade Organization, International Olympic Committee and others under a variety of pseudonyms, most commonly Chinese Taipei. |
|
Taivo - Re. "It's a great example of what we've been talking about with the anon IP--one size cannot fit all etc". Your logic is that a "dumb" reader will expect to see certain flags listed and so the list must reflect that....That is not objective criteria. It means the list is devoid of integrity. Yes, one size can certainly fit all - objective criteria applied consistently. See my very logical and objective criteria listed below. In contrast, you offer no criteria for the list or any way to give the list any integrity. 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 19:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we try to set down clean, objective criteria by which we can decide questions concerning which flags to be included rather than arbitrarily deciding every time. In this section we could set out our proposed criteria. The following is my prosal. 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I propose that the only flags that should be included in the list are:
(1) the flags of the widely recognised states (no change)
(2) the flags of the partially recognised states (no change)
(3) the flags of the Non-Self Governing Territories (as listed by the United Nations) [15]. This would mean several flags would be dropped but it would mean that the list would have (1) integrity; and (2) consistency. The following are the list of the flags that would then fall to be included (all of which arae on the list at present):
AFRICA 1. Western Sahara
ATLANTIC AND CARIBBEAN
2. Anguilla
3. Bermuda
4. British Virgin Islands
5. Cayman Islands
6. Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
7. Montserrat
8. St. Helena
9. Turks and Caicos Islands
10. United States Virgin Islands
EUROPE
11. Gibraltar
PACIFIC AND INDIAN OCEANS
12. American Samoa
13. Guam
14. New Caledonia
15. Pitcairn
16. Tokelau
Is there any support or other views on the above as a criteria? 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 19:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, the anonymous IP above is possibly a sock of a banned user. -- Taivo ( talk) 15:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a right not to create an account here....This is most unfair. I am not a sock and what on earth have I done wrong...I have promoted worthwhile discussion. I even helped get a conensus on the Talk: Kosovo-note template (the use of which they are listing as a reason for banning me!). Please help! What edits have I done wrong...now you are trying to say I am a sock - On what basis? Why do you say that? YOu have no right to just sling allegations around. I have a right to be an IP editor....every one in the world can see my IP address....I am not an "anon sock". You should prove it if you are trying to just drum up noise to get me banned! I never attack any editor personally and look at me now, you and a few others on that page appear intent on getting me banned. 84.203.69.86 ( talk) 21:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Throughout the article countries in the EU and Commonwealth Realms are mentioned as such. Would there be objections to adding other important (Flexibly groups that have played a large role diplomatically/economically/regionally) international groups? I personally was thinking of the Arab League and ASEAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipmunkdavis ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
How did only IANVS catch that? My deepest apologies for that freudian slip. I agree with BritishWatcher that we need a list before we add. Personally I dont think that the AU should be added, it hasn't achieved much at all, not even basic economic integration among all its member states. I suggest ASEAN, CARICOM, MERCOSUR, and the Andean Community. The last 3 have introduced common passports, and ASEAN has a common economic area and a free trade zone which includes China. Furthermore, there is no overlap between these, if that matters. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 20:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Just from reading the discussion so-far, I'm thinking this would probably cause a bit more trouble than it's worth. It seems like selection would be based on arbitrary picking and choosing. I agree with Taivo that there is an essential quality that the EU has that sets it apart from ordinary international institutions, thereby making it necessary of mention. And as for the Commonwealth, as Orange said, we don't mention membership to the Commonwealth of Nations. A state's status as a Commonwealth realm is a constitutional status —it's not an IGO, so it can't be used as stare decisis in this proposal. Night w ( talk) 04:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Understood. Will leave it as is for now, and will wait for organisations (UNASUR, EAC) to do a bit more then, for now. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 20:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is the description of Palau Micronesia and the Marshall Islands as associated states of the USA important? Just wondering :) Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 20:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that, to my knowledge, Rotuma is not a country (in the sense of polity, dependency, etc.) separate from Fiji. I'm aware that it is not one of the listed provinces of Fiji, but I don't believe it has autonomous status either. Sources are very scant but I found this one: http://books.google.com/books?id=B9Qww9fVkGIC&pg=PA239&lpg=PA239&dq=rotuma+free+association&source=bl&ots=yyE_6WYTgQ&sig=3SMYyQfkQjvX_1i8WK5wqfY9LPA&hl=en&ei=bIE3TPWxF8G88gaD2OSmBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rotuma%20free%20association&f=false Ladril ( talk) 20:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I've added the islands' special charter. Questioning the origin of long-accepted claims is a very good way to improve the page. However, next time, please use {{ cn}} instead of just changing the statement to something else. Night w ( talk) 05:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi to all. I make little but fundamental changes to the article, concerning the difference between recognized and unrecognized counties.
There was a concept which is in a total contrast with international law: the statement that an unrecognized country would be "de facto independent". This is totally false. According to ius cogens and the main conventional treaties (the Montevideo Convention over all) a state which is de facto independent automaticly beoomes de iure independent and it is recognized by the international community. If a state is unrecognized, this means that general international community considers that it is NOT de facto independent and sovereign, their claimed independence being fictious only. Let's give some exemples. Is South Ossetia de facto independent? No, according to the opinion of the international community, which says (with a low voice, for obvious reasons) that its de facto condition is to be a Russian dependency and, consequently, does not recognize it. The case of Noth Cyprus is ever more clear: there are explicit final judgements by the Concil of Europe which say that NC is de facto a Turkisk province, no differently from Ankara region or Istanbul region.
The writers of this page made an error: they took territory, population and government as sufficient conditions to "NPOVly" describe a de facto independent state (and using international recognition to identify de iure independent states). But this is basicly false. Even the State of Texas has a territory, a population, a government, and a Head of State which owns powers which, in the great majority of the other countries worldwide, belong to the king or the President of the Republic. But, as everyone knows, Texas is not a sovereign state, because it has a sovereign power over it. More than Texas, Portorico does not elect the government of the US but, even with its territory, its population and its government, it is not a sovereign state, being subject to the US. Well, international community says that Northern Cyprus relation with Turkey is de facto the same relation between Portorico and the United States. By the other side, the majority of i.c. says that Kosovo is not de facto independent, but it is de facto a dependency of the US and its allies.
Saying that an unrecognized country would be a de facto sovereign state, would mean not to understand the main reason because it is not recognized.-- 79.54.154.62 ( talk) 15:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The sole NPOV affirmation we can make, is that they claim to be independent.
A separate and unique case is the Taiwan affair (Somaliland effective power outside its "capital" is quite dubious). PR of China (slowly) says that the de facto sovereignty over the island is American. This position is generally considered as a pure political opinion. But the problem of Taiwan is that, differently from what wikipedia uncorrectly says, Taiwan has not diplomatic relation with the greater part of the international community, but it has consular relation with the greater part of the world states (including US, UK, Russia, France, Germsny and Italy). The error here is merging the Taiwan case (which is unique) with the other ones.
A little problem of logic to finish. If I says that A, B and C are red balls, both A, B and C must be red. If even B is green, my sentence is false. Here, we have a list of unrecognized states, and wikipedia is saying that they are de facto independent. But, at least in one case (North Cyprus), official sources say that this is false. So, wikipedia's statement that they are independent, is false, or at least it is in contrast with official sources, so becoming POV. To eliminate this problem I suggest a more NPOV aaffirmation, says that this states claim to be independent. So we would explain thair position, but we would not put wikipedia in opposition with official sources (all positions about the reality, negative of affermative, could be added).--
79.54.154.62 (
talk)
23:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) The article is perfectly accurate as it stands. You have made a very good argument for de jure status (and the court case proves that), but not for de facto status. I have stated that several times already. No other editors are agreeing with you. The article has been through multiple discussions and revisions over the past year in order to reach a stable, consensus-driven, NPOV status. Build a consensus for change, but you have failed to build a consensus at this point. -- Taivo ( talk) 13:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
If I could chip in, the ip seems to be disputing the use of the term "de facto", saying that they are not "de facto" independent from the bigger states around them. However, he confuses the issue of influence and independence. As a fact, Turkey has a great influence in Northern Cyprus, not least because as the only country that recognizes it, it is the only country able to send aid and assist in a diplomatic fashion. Russia and South Ossetia/Abkhazia have the same situation. That does not mean they are not "de facto" independent. Being independent doesn't mean being free from outside influence. For example, would you currently claim that Greece is not "de facto" independent from Germany, as Germany is in a way dictating the way it runs its economical systems? You wouldn't. Influence is not the same as independence, which is the issue at hand. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 22:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC) "
At this point, has the anon IP convinced any of the regular editors of his/her point of view? (Please don't respond here, anon IP, let's leave this just as a simple polling.) -- Taivo ( talk) 17:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
More than mobbing the original poster, let's suggest a source: [26]. See page x of the Foreword, where an explicit definition of a de facto state is made. I do not think the majority is wrong in this case. Ladril ( talk) 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
For translations and transliterations in this list, we are currently using, respectively:
I propose we use instead, a single source:
The UNGEGN document includes both translation and transliteration in the one document and, from what I can tell, we shouldn't need any additional references. It is also undoubtedly more authoratative. Apparently, as it is now, we don't even use the sources we cite, as the CIA renders all their names without macrons (which we include).
I apologise if this makes one too many active discussions on this page. I've had this lined up for a while, and I was waiting for the IP nonsense to end. Night w ( talk) 01:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I've created a diff for review. It's actually a fair bit more substantial than I thought it would be, but most changes are very minor. Entries most significantly affected are listed in the box below. Discussion over these changes should take place at the bottom of this talk page. I will then archive the discussion at Talk:List of sovereign states after its conclusion, as this page will be deleted. Night w ( talk) 12:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Entries affected
|
In addition, some different conventions are applied, the affects of which are visible in the diff.
I've also added {{ cn}} next to entries which are not addressed in the UN source. They are:
Changes that would occur to non-Latin scripts are not shown in the diff, as my browser can't seem to manage a simply copy-paste.
I can find no reason to argue with anything you have done, as it is definitely verifiable and probably right. In terms of your unverifiable ones, I have no idea why fiji has hindu or urdu scripts anyway. In terms of issue one, the current wikipedia page for Myanmar calls it Burma, due to a huge edit war after the monks protest. After the junta elections, there will be another discussion to try and get it changed back to Myanmar. Contentious political issue. As for Macedonia, Macedonia is the short form, and surely the equivalent word is included in the very long UN name? Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 08:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
A single disgruntled anonymous IP with a legalistic point does not justify the disputed fact tag. I have removed it. -- Taivo ( talk) 13:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Your attitude and interventations are flaming a discussion which was fairly started. Please wait some other interventations by users.-- 79.54.154.62 ( talk) 13:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Anon IP, please stop needlessly adding tags to an article that is stable and based on consensus. Establish a consensus for your views without inserting unnecessary and unwarranted tags. -- Taivo ( talk) 15:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a standard for which we put in the administrative divisions? I understand that special administrative divisions are included, and that places like England are included to help the reader. Besides that though, does the article only cover the countries with internal divisions that contain levels of autonomy? (eg. Federations) Including the information of places like Colombia seems to be inconsistent. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 17:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I want to rewrite/reformat this "French sovereignty over Bassas da India, Europa Island and Juan de Nova Island is disputed by Madagascar, over Glorioso Islands by Madagascar, the Seychelles and the Comoros, over Tromelin Island by Mauritius and the Seychelles, and over Banc du Geyser by Madagascar and the Comoros.[7]" to make it more readable in the table format it is in, but cannot figure out how. Would it be better with each dispute taking a different line? Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
"The continent of Antarctica, including its outlying islands south of 60°S, are held in abeyance under the terms of the Antarctic Treaty System. All territorial claims are neither recognised nor disputed. Claimant countries are Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom. There is also an informal Brazilian claim."
This note is incorrect and inconsistent with the article, as far as I can see. Issues:
Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 21:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
autonomous
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).EU
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).realm
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).dis
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).ChinaTaiwan
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Spratly
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).