Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive 3

message: Surely Sealand deserves to be included, on any of the normally accepted definitions of sovereignty. TharkunColl 12:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object on teh grounds that (d) is not actually meet.  Sealand has no form of communications with ANYONE, much less diplomatic relations, excpt via a post offic box in the UK.  Any phone or data links are exclusivly provided by the UK. Dalf | Talk 12:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Aside form what Shocktm says below.  My point that it does not have the capacity to enter into relations with the other states from a technical perspective stands. Dalf | Talk 05:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Non-recognition isn't the issue, I would say population and territory really are too marginal. The term state does imply a certain critical mass. Though the fact that the family permanently lives there does make it a borderline case. sephia karta 14:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct. Lack of recognition does not imply lack of legitimacy. Customary international law. However, reality check can certainly apply to things like territory and population. Sephia, are you sure that the family permanently lives there? I am under the impression that no one lives on the platform. The entire population of Sealand are citizens and permanent residents of England. That applies to both Paddy and Michael (although the latter is reported to be a frequent visitor to the platform). With regards to Transnistria, its ministries do interact with foreign goverments. Last week alone, its minister of foreign affairs signed sixteen agreements with various ministries and government departments in Russia. - Mauco 18:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I assumed they did, if they don't then that's that. sephia karta 18:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. That's that. - Mauco 18:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sealand

message: Jiang, I agree that all significant povs should be presented. What we seem to disagree is where in the article this should be done. I think listing the contraversial state in the "List of sovereign states" it is not netral (footnote or not). By placing them in a seperate list with the arguments about why they can or can't be considered sovereign states we represent a NPOV with all significant POVs present. I do not understand why you can't agree on that.(PaC 07:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Decwindows (BTW if you are a registered editor you can sign by typing four tildes (~~~~)). There should be a separate list for these territories. I think the term "disputed territories" is the most neutral. How about a statement along the lines "These geopolitical entities are considered to be de-facto independent states by some and occupied territories by others"? (PaC 09:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also I am splitting this discussion, starting part II of it - I think it was getting too long and cumbersome. I hope I am not violating any WP rules. (PaC 09:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate list for disputed territories 

message: It's interesting to note that the Cook Islands constitution actually says that the Cook Islands Parliament is sovereign:
:"There shall be a sovereign Parliament for the Cook Islands, to be called the Parliament of the Cook Islands." — Constitution of the Cook Islands, article 21, section 1.
So the Cook Islands has —(a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) government, and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states — and it is legally sovereign according to its constitution. So why is it not on this list?
Ben Arnold 00:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sovereignty situation of Cook Islands and Niue are indeed very similar with that of Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. The only difference is UN membership, which, in recent years, has become a very influential criteria. — Instantnood 11:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cook Islands Parliament is Sovereign 

message: "you will see that this list includes de facto states. The question here is whether Abkhazia and South Ossetia are de facto states, and the answer is yes, so they can be included".
But they are not de facto states! They are occupied territories with administration appointed from Russia and among Russian citizens. They are precisely de facto occupied territories! So they should not be included.
23:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abkhazia and South Ossetia 

message: *I think we all agree that the reason for the current dispute is the genuine uncertainty and ambiguity of the status of these self-proclaimed territories.
*In turn, the reason for this uncertainty, as Jiang pointed out, is coming from the current definition provided in the article. I do not think anybody would disagree that the Montevideo Convention's definition is really vague and genuinely ambiguous.  We've seen it being used to argue both for statehood and against it for the same territory. In fact many UN member countries more likely to not qualify as states under this definition. Do we really want to exclude them?
*Even the Wikipedia article on Montevideo Convention says that its use is questionable and that “Generally, a middle-ground approach to the recognition of statehood has been taken; a recognition of states approach.”
*I do not see why we should take a different approach from the one generally taken, especially since it will allow us to get out of this conundrum in a clean and NPOV way.
*If we take the criteria for statehood to be “recognition by several UN member states” or smth like that we are done. It is unambiguous, clear and NPOV. Case closed and no reasonable editor who in the future stumbles upon this article would raise question whether some territory should be included in the list or not.
*The article, I think, should include smth like the following: “An alternative approach to defining a statehood is given by Montevideo Convention: <provide definition>, which is somewhat vague and questionable. Under this definition one may argue that the territories that are commonly referred to as de-facto independent also satisfy the requirements for statehood. (See, for example, the List of unrecognized countries, or the List of countries and territories.)"
*I believe this approach is  neutral, noncontroversial, and factual.
(PaC 02:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Motivation

message: Can somebody volunteer to create a preliminary new version of the article along the lines that seem to have a majority support:
*Criteria for inclusion: "recognized by several sovereign states"
*We provide Montevideo criteria and provide a link to the list of unrecognized countries and list of all countries
I am extremely busy next week and will have hard time participating in the discussion. (PaC 00:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We went through that many times. Declarative criteria do not give a clear and unambiguous definitions of which states to include. They may be used in courts but we here can not and should not make these interpretations. The approach proposed now is clear, used by most encyclopedia, and not less neutral than any declarative theory. As for recursive definition... I was concerned about his too but I think it is clear to everybody what is meant here. We can become more technical and say something like "a) UN member states are considered sovereign; b)states recognized by several UN member states are considered sovereign, and c) states recognized by already sovereign states are considered sovereign." That should fix this minor technical concern, but would introduce unnecessary confusion in the article.  (PaC 02:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Version

message: Are Native American tribes regarded as sovereign states? Especially if they have federal and/or state recognition? Asarelah 23:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Native American tribes

message: I think that a notation should be listed in the B section
something like "Burma: see Myanmar"  The US government does not recognize the name Myanmar for the country and uses the name Burma. A cross reference may prove helpful and eliminate confusion. --Ted-m 23:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burma/Myanmar 

message: Although Montenegro had officially declared its independence on June 3, and according to the constitution the other member of the union (i.e. Serbia) would be a successor to the union, until this moment neither the parliament of the union nor the Serbian parliament has declared Serbia's succession of the union. The union still exists with one member. Would it be correct to include both Montenegro and Serbia and Montenegro (instead of Serbia) on this list, until the union officially made the name change from Serbia and Montenegro to Serbia? — Instantnood 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, um, the country Serbia and Montenegro still exists, except that Montenegro isn't part of it?  This seems a bit silly. john k 10:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds to be, but it's does seem to be the status quo. Has the parliament of the union been dissolved, with its power transferred to that of Serbia? If not, have the 35 MPs from Montenegro resigned? What about the President of Serbia and Montenegro? Has he resigned, and has the power been transferred to the President of Serbia (tho he said he was about to do so )? — Instantnood 11:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: My changes reflect the fact that Serbia accepted the dissolution today; they legally succeed SiM as Serbia in all international organisations. —Nightstallion (?) 20:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great :-) Dr. Manos 22:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Has the parliament of the state union done likewise? Has the successor of the state union, i.e. Serbia, applied to international organisations and the like for name change? — Instantnood 20:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Serbia is now officially the successor of SiM's membership in all international organisations. You're welcome to wait until each and every organisation gets around to update their website with the membership data, but I'd be in favour of presenting accurate information *now*. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 01:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, as for the purpose of this list, Serbia is the sovereign state. Nevertheless until it's application for name change is officially approved by the UN, it should still be listed as Serbia and Montenegro on the list of UN member states (same for other similar listings). — Instantnood 20:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Serbia and Montenegro

message: Names in the first line "Federated States of Micronesia" and in English line 
"Federates States of Micronesia" differs. What is correct?--81.17.152.207 17:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Micronesia 

message: Addition of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) as a sovereign entitiy:
:RATIONALE:
:(1) It satisfies all criteria enlisted in the Montevideo Convention:
::(a) a permanent population: CHECK (Turkish)
::(b) a defined territory : CHECK (From UN Buffer zone on the south to north of the island of Cyprus) 
::(c) government CHECK
::(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. CHECK (de jure:Turkey, de facto: United States, Organization of Islamic Conference (observer state), EU)
:::*Here it falls into the category of states lacking majority international recognition as: never a UN member, recognized by 1 other state, with complete de-facto control over all of its claimed territory and currently with de facto international relations with many states.
Kertenkelebek 12:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does have de facto relations with US(check here:TRNC Representative Office to the United States) and EU and all members of Organization of Islamic Conference.  Kertenkel ebek (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We should obviously list none of those "states". The only entity on the list which qualifies is Taiwan. -- Jordi·✆ 13:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. We should, this is not the list of recognized countries or UN members, it's the list of states that in effect have some sort of sovereignty (such as the TRNC, can't actually claim that the official Cypriot government has any say over it since the Turkish invasion and the subsequent illegal occupation) Dr. Manos 14:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) 

message: *ROC from C to T: To Conform to List of Countries.
*Removal of Tiawan from Republic of China name: Taiwan on the offical sites is just a discripition for tourist/causal people.
* Removal of Capital from the two Congo's name: Not offically apart of there Offical Short Form English Name
BionicWilliam 10:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining my Edits to the China's and the Congos's 

message: Can anyone tell me why the Sovereign States of the Fifty States, United are not here?  For instance, California Republic, whose Constitution has never been repealed and which has a voting public (the California Jural Society.  It has a flag, a Constitution, a populace, and territory.  Now I'm not looking for an argument, just a definitive answer why it is not included... The United States, and its Internal Revenue System (quietly) acknowledges its citizen's claims, why not wikipedia? Pedant 02:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sovereign States of the U.S. 

message: Is there any reason to keep the English Translations in the List of States section, given that the heading of each state is already written in English?  Examples include The Bahamas, Dominica, India, Kenya.  Suggest deletion for all redundent translations and refraining from adding more English-English translations.
: lol - "English to English" translations - keep them just so we can be doubly sure.  ;-)    Get rid of them!!! Merbabu 16:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Translations 

message: Note that List of sovereign state flags also redirects here, so some people who want to look up a flag might find themselves at this article. But the flag images are so small that they are barely visible.
It would make this article a lot more useful if flag image sizes were about 3 times as big as the present size. It would make looking up flags a lot easier for people who saw a flag somewhere but don't know which country does it belong to. After all this is the purpose of Wikipedia as an encylopedia: to make it possible to easily look up things.
:Flags Why are they here at all? Why not coats of arms, or maps? They take a long time to load on dial-up, too. If anything, delete them. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag images too small