Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive 1

message: What happened to Euzkadi and Catalunya -- are they dependent territories ? That sounds funny, because (I thought) dependent territories are non-contiguous with the owning country.
:Well, at least they are no countries. There are people that think they should be independent countries. --zeno 13:04, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to Euzkadi (Basque) and Catalunya ? 

message: Why are Abkhazia, Chechnya, Puntland, Somaliland, and South Ossetia listed here?  These countries aren't recognized by anyone. john 10:03, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrecognized self-declared countries

message: I saw Sealand was resored to the list. I really do not believe that Sealand is in any way a country comparable to any of the countries listed in the list. Adding these kind of mincro-nations makes the list not serious. The othger non recognized countries have some real area under control and have a substantial population. Sealand doesn't have that.
I will remove Sealand again and waiting for the discussion.
Gangulf 22:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I was the one who restored that, I feel obliged to answer. First of all, let me point out that I don't necessarily see a need to include Sealand on the list; however, noone has given a good reason yet why it shouldn't be listed (in particular, you didn't when I asked about this on your talk page a couple of days ago). As for "real area" and "substantial population"... the article states that its definition of "country" is based on the Montevideo Convention, which, while requiring a "defined territory" and a "permanent population" does not give any (lower) limits on the size of either that have to be met in order to be eligible to be considered a country. Furthermore, as some food for thought, if you really want to remove Sealand based on these issues after all... shouldn't Vatican City be removed as well, then? With an area of less than half of a square kilometer and a population of only 890, one might just as well argue that it does not have a "real area" and "substantial population", either, especially when compared to other countries. All in all, if you can provide some convincing arguments why Sealand should not be in the list, that's fine with me, but so far, I haven't seen any. -- Schnee 23:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Montivideo Convention means that an entity should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. I am not sure about a, b and c, but I certainly don't see the capacity to enter into relations with the other states. That is a big difference with the Vatican. Next to that the Vatican has a larger surface and a larger population. Sealand surely belongs in the category Micronations, where it is listed. Gangulf 13:58, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the problems is to determine if a manmade structure is a "territory". As for the capacity to enter into relations with the other states, would do you mean you don't see it? What about boats? Helicopters? even by phone, they could contact other nations! ^^ are you saying that islands can't be countries? Anyway I don't believe sealand should be on that list, not because of its size, but because it appears to still be unclear if it can legally be considered a country or not. I did add a link to micronations, i thinks it is the best solution^^ F</FONT>i</FONT>P</FONT> 14:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I see your additional reasons not to consider it a country. I believe islands can be states, there are many island states. Contacts with boats, helicopters or even by phone, I don't think that is not entering relations with the other states. Does Sealand have any embassy or consulate in another state? Gangulf 14:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. one more reason not to put it in the list ^^ F</FONT>i</FONT>P</FONT> 14:26, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as the "capacity to enter into relations with other states" is concerned, I think that does not refer to technical necessities for doing so - rather, it means that you've got to have an administration or government of whatever sort that enables the nation to enter into relations. -- Schnee 13:15, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Alright, it appears that sealand has entered into relations with Belgium and England (to do with their mail). Germany also sent a diplomat their way at one time to get a citizen back. Accordingly, it meets all requirements for listing, if you do not list it, the requirements must be changed and other nations de-listed. The system of recognizing nationality is not serious and therefore the article can also be not serious. --</b>metta,  The Sunborn ☸ 22:41, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sealand 

message: What about cross referencing territories with their Kingdom in the countries list? (Sort of like the Burma (now Myanmar) listing.  For example Aruba, according to the CIA factbook is listed as a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, should it be added - Aruba (See Kingdom of the Netherlands), Territories.
: I think it should be added, since Aruba is a country, even though it's not an independent state. This article is titled "list of countries", not "list of states".  Peking Duck 18:40, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good idea. Peking Duck 11:31, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross-referencing

message: Perhaps this should be mentioned in the main article:
* 208 is total number listed (including duplicates) 
* 4 have duplicates (Burma/Myanmar, Republic_of_China/Taiwan, East_Timor/Timor_Leste, Holy_See/Vatican_City)
* So 204 is total number of sovereign states (according to this article)
-- sabre23t 04:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Total number of sovereign states

message: Why is Kosovo on this list? It is not independent at all.
From the first part of this article: The listing includes both de jure and de facto independent states.
:(a) a permanent population => yes
:(b) a defined territory => yes
:(c) government => yes (UN)
:(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states => no
:de jure => no (recognized as being part of Serbia.
--zeno 10:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosovo 

message: Making the links China, Ireland, and Macedonia is POV. The ROC is just about never called China and almost always called Taiwan. Its sometimes called Zhonghua Minguo, but never Zhongguo in Chinese. --Jiang 21:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with Taiwan, but the short name of Ireland is Ireland, of Macedonia is Macedonia and of the PRC is China. The format of the table is that the short name is the name where the link is. The link itself goes to the article with the long name (Republic of Ireland). What is POV about that? -- Gangulf 06:16, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: But why is Ireland POV and why is Macedonia more POV then Republic ? As a compromise I suggest to link to both. --Gangulf 10:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: OK, another attempt. I changed the links in the first column to:
Making the links China, People's Republic of, Ireland, Republic of, and Macedonia, Republic of.  I do not think that is POV. --Gangulf 18:37, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV formatting 

message: In my opinion the new format of the page is superb.
Is there a reason why the native languages have been used for the short form but not in the official form?
I am positive that the addition of the official form beneath the English long form would be a further beneficial enhancement.
I would have been inclined to start it off myself but thought I would wait for any comments before I spent time on this though.
And yes - I know that the detail is included in many of the main articles - but including it here would mean one would not have to go into 200-odd individual pages to get a list of the official names in the official language (which is rare to get anywhere on the web).
Also I would really like someone with a knowledge of Tigrinya and Arabic to provide the native format of "Hagere Ertra" and "al-Dawla al-Iritra" for the "State of Eritrea"   --JohnArmagh 18:16, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like it, but it will be a hell of a job and the document would become very large. However, I agree.. --Gangulf 20:47, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent.  Large documents should not really pose a problem (see the list of Abbeys and priories in England, for instance) - the main concern should be that they are searchable - obviously a priority is that anything which is on the list, or any word which should be on the list, should be easily found.  Secondly the list should be as comprehensive as possible.  I will start compiling such information as I can find and, in the absence of substantial objections I will integrate the updates.  --JohnArmagh 21:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Format 

message: Is federal structure really of such significance as to require a footnote?  This seems silly and unnecessary. john k 21:44, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it because of the discussions on Scotland and Wales. It is is of no use, we can delete it. --Gangulf 22:12, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal structure 

message: again i must stress the issue of being rouge and using its conequences to establish a state. 
1. Kosovo is NOT under Serbian control which is their main golal.
2. Kosovo like most states surrounding states of Nazi Germany is under occupation yet for the sake of dramatics Poland's date of independence is 1945 while BELGIUMS IS 1860 something still and (non-Vichy) France is still considored so old a date it is NOT listed. Why recognize this occupation but not others?
3. Since the UN is in charge and they "chamion" peoples' rights why call them being in charge a lack of independence for the Kosos? 
4. The occupation is reminincent of the partial fall of Ethiopia. In many maps there are referinces to the Scramble for Africa yet Ethiopia/Abyssinia is listed as being OCCUPIED by Italy from '36 'til '41 but not as a colony freed in 1941 but as the nation of Da'ammot/Axum established in the 300s or so. There is enough Koso resistance to place its status as "in rebelion" but in no way shape or form under any other entity's control. 
5. ITS NOT FAIR to jump to conclusion just bcause a capital is occupied.
6. As long as the nation is NOT  down for the count like East Timur from 1975-1998 recogniton is irelavent while E. Tim's recognition did it no good because of Indonesian's imperial brute force.
7. Kosovo DID DECLARE INDEPENDENCE IN 1992 OR '91  and Worldstatesman.org will verify this.
to the Chechen debate. I think we should all learn about these countries before hand to judge. Chechnia is the "Chechen" entity claiming independence while Ickeria also a "Chechen" entity declared independence from Chechnia and then rejoined Russia. Its like West Virginia joining the Union. While its no longer Virginia it is still Virgian. Ickeria simply put is Russia's W. Virginia.
and no one has yet to clear up what Basque is!!!!!!!
--Vital component  7:52 pm
:I tries to understand this contribution, but that was not easy. Clear is that the list includes recognized sovereign states (like Belgium and de facto sovereign states (like Abkhazia) that rule a certain territory. A claim for independence is not enough. Kosovo is neither a de jure or a de facto sovereign states. It can be considered an international protectorate, but thereis no republic  of Kosovo ruling Kosovo. On Chechnya: there is no recognized sovereign state and there is not a de facto independent state of Chechnya ruling Chechnya. --Gangulf 05:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Stil I do not understand what you want. Do you want to add Casamance?  --Gangulf 20:46, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosovo revisited 

message: Because of the major edit I am putting on hold my updates to the list.
BTW: Is there any way of ascertaining who it is who is undertaking the major edit - i.e. if someone had put the flag on on behalf of someone else, would that someone else always know that they were the one who everyone else was waiting to finish their major edit?  --JohnArmagh 09:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the one --Gangulf 10:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do prefer a tabular format myself - but not because of the vertical distribution (as long as a word or phrase is there it can be found by Ctrl+F (or whatever the user's browser incorporates) and in a long list vertical length can be unavoidable) - but because it fills the page more effectively.  The most important aspects are a) that the data is all-present-and-correct, and b) that it meets, as far as possible, conventions embodied in similar such lists.  --JohnArmagh 11:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I restored a tabular format, but adding the official names in the orginal languages has some consequences. --Gangulf 11:49, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: The problem was the addition of the official names in the native languages, especially when there are more then one native language. This would lead to entries hard to read. Now it is clear. The first column gives in English the short and the official name, the second does that in the native langauges. --Gangulf 21:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Edit 

message: Just above the notes Western Sahara is listed as de fact independent state. Well, I think that's not correct, it might be legally independant, but it is de facto under the control of Morocco. Gugganij 13:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected it now. Gangulf 14:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I think you are right about Palestine, but it has some territory under control. Sahara is listed as Sahara since Western isn't part of its offical name, the Democratic Arab Republic of Sahara. Gangulf 17:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Sahara 

message: According to the article Ogadenia it is under the control of Ethiopia, thus why is it bold? Gugganij 13:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted it, it doesn't belong here. It should be in the List of active autonomist and secessionist movements. Gangulf 14:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Gugganij 11:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ogadenia 

message: There are some states listed on the sovereign states list even though they don't exist (Palestine is an example). Tibet did exist, was illegally occupied by China, and has a goverment in exile. The difference between Palentine and Tibet is that the Tibetans don't go blowing up people. Are we going to penalize them for their peaceful ways? Even though the UN status of Tibet is different from Palestine, is it not because China is on the security council, and is a 800 pound gorilla in the world economy? This is a free ecyclopedia, founded on best humanistic priciples. You can expect the UN and the governments of the world at large be guided by considerations of realpolitic, must the Wikipedia be too? I appeal to the conscience of the editors and moderators- please do the right thing.
There is another issue, the person making the edits on the page (Jiang) is Chinese and has a poster prejudicial to the Dalai Lama on his home page ('Dalai Lama had slaves'). I'm sure he has made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and I don't want to question his judgement or his impartiality, however in the interests of *appearing* to be impartial, I feel he should recuse himself from making Tibet related edits.
:I understand and appreciate your comments; however, we run into the fact that this list is, by its very nature, going to suffer from POV. There are so many areas that would prefer to be listed as sovereign - Palestine, Tibet, Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, Turkish Cyprus, Transnistria, etc. - that may not. Some of these are on this list; some are not.  A line has to be drawn, and that line will be POV from one side or another. 
:In this case, it seems that the construction of this list has been towards extreme non-POV; note all the conditions for being listed. Palestine and Western Sahara are *recognized* by many other countries; Tibet is not. Is this possibly because of China's stature in the world scene? Yes. But it's difficult to make exceptions based on that. And Tibet is certainly not "de-facto" independent, China obviously exerts considerable control over it.
:Since Tibet is neither de jure nor de facto an independent nation, it should not be listed. Can you list any other region with a similar situation to Tibet? Palestine is the closest, and as you point out, Tibet seems to be being punished by not bombing innocents - but China would seem to have more control over Tibet than Israel has over Palestine, and again, many nations recognize Palestine as an independent nation, which is not the case with Tibet. --Golbez 18:51, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
::Oh man, I decided to read up on the foreign relations of Tibet... should have known. We can blame this on the British, like almost every other border-drawing snafu of the last 300 years. :P Tibet is starting to sound more like Chechnya than Palestine, and Chechnya is not listed... furthermore, while the Government of Tibet in Exile article states that it is not recognized by "any major nations", that doesn't mean it's not recognized by minor ones - but, unlike Northern Cyprus, it's not de facto independent. (Northern Cyprus being recognized by only one nation) --Golbez 18:54, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
::Thanks for your comments, however the facts stand. Tibet was a peaceful country, and didnt have an army so the red army walked all over it, like the Britishers did earlier. At least the British didn't engage in the ethnic and cultural cleansing like the Chinese who have settled millions of Chinese people in Tibet and destroyed monasteries. Tibetans have been peaceful in their struggle for independence, not even hurting another human being let along killing one, and guess where it got them. Maybe in this world, they should have killed a bunch of civilians too. Again, yes, Palestine is recognized by a number of countries in the region, but surely you realize that is not surprising given the region of the world it is in. Fine, we will go by this charade here too. The Wikipedia is a reflection of this world we live in. The moral of the story is, that nice people finish last. Have a good day. - The original poster
:::Yes, Tibet was a peaceful country that was invaded and traded - That doesn't change the fact that it is neither de jure nor de facto independent. Your appeal to emotion is entirely POV and not necessary here. --Golbez 02:27, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
In defense of myself, note that just because I've decorated my page with a picture of a crank does not mean I adhere to his views. In case you're wondering, that is not me....just some weirdo in San Francisco Chinatown (and Berkeley) who's been hacking at it for the last 30 years.
The criteria for listing on this page is 1) de jure independence or 2) de facto independence. Whether the state bombed other states or was conquered by another is really irrelevant. We are looking at the situation as it stands now. Looking at what the situation should be or should have been is just too much of a mess to deal with. this is the most objective criteria we can come up with now.--Jiang 02:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tibet 

message: Is anyone interested in a Collaboration of the Week or similar project to work on different countries? Maurreen 19:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: COTW?

message: It seems that the Vatican City does not fit the definition of a sovereign state that is given: it has no permanent population. No women, no children, only the Pope and his staff. I believe this is also the reason why it is not officially recognized by the United Nations. Remove, or at least add a note? --Chl 20:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vatican City

message: Why is this a list of sovereign states and not a list of countries and territories? If we had a single comprehensive list we could just note next to each area its degree of autonomy. I don't see why readers should have to go to another page entirely to find the Cook Islands or Greenland, merely because of some diplomatic technicality.
I recognise that there's going to be some debate around the fringes, and I don't think micronations should be on the list, or areas under the temporary control of warlords. But I don't see the harm in erring on the liberal side in general.
Frankly the way this page and its related pages are structured seems blatantly POV to me. To adopt a neutral point of view we shouldn't be deliniating between different degrees of sovereignty. We should mention the issues (concisely), link to the territory's main article, and let people make their own distinctions.
Has this been discussed somewhere else? I'd really like to understand the arguments that led to the status quo.
Ben Arnold 02:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem would be how to select what entities can be in wand which entities don't belong to the list. Personally I would like to have an integrated list with all de jure and de facto sovereign states as wll as the dependent territories. I agree we would have to exclude micronations (like Sealand) and areas under the temporary control of warlords. I will make an effort to include the dependent territories in the new layout. Electionworld 08:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why sovereign states?