waa what have i done seemingly stumbled into a nest of entrenched pov warriors so as not to get too bogged down in the war of attrition that seems to have claimed the above attempts if as seems to be being suggested naming should be per current wikipedia polices then most relevant seem to be npov naming wp bias and most of all disambiguation primary topics per the last a topic may be primary by usage and long term significance if needs to be addressed apparently in certain instances surely here only one sense of primacy is relevant the usurped un member etc does have more far page views per user henrik's stats tool than the pretender the administrative division and web presence may not always be the best guide to long term significance otherwise justin bieber would apparently be more significant to the history of culture and civilization than the athenian democracy etc so with out the way if we are agreed that long term significance is here the key determinant then long term significance unesco world heritage site from where i'm sitting both are far off lands about which we know little per the respective article pages however and for starters one a un member state the other not one with a written history of over two millenia the other not one an important geo political entity fought over by rival powers from the hittites in the second millenium bc to the russians in the other not one a distinct culture with its own language and script the other not one with an architectural and artistic tradition recognised as of universal significance by unesco et al the other not one with a musical tradition of early polyphony and other intangible heritage that is also recognized as of global important by unesco the other not