Talk:List of sovereign states
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of sovereign states article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 25 days |
List of sovereign states is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This list has a detailed criteria for inclusion. Please do not add new entries without prior discussion. Items that do not fit the set criteria, such as Antarctica, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and polities normally classified as dependent territories, micronations, supranational unions or constituent political divisions will be removed. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Ripples of this article
User:Spesh531 has been going around all sorts of country lists and changing them so CI and Niue are undistinguished from fully sovereign states (forgive my semantics). I think this is inappropriate considering the undetermined consensus over Niue here, but am bringing the matter to this page instead of mass reverting in case I'm terribly wrong. CMD (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have any objection to their inclusion anywhere but as long as it's done carefully and with a caveat noting their status (like we do with any disputed state). So this is probably okay in my eyes, but this probably not. And it's important to understand that some lists, like this one use a single source and we should present them in the same way the source does. Nightw 04:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the indiscriminate nature bothers me. I did revert this one. Also, I don't think "claims independence" is a good qualifying note, they seem as happy to keep the status grey as anyone else. CMD (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Also here, another removal on the basis that "and niue claim independence". CMD (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Other articles have different inclusion criteria which may cause the Cook Islands and Niue to be excluded. And I also note that lists based on ISO 3166-1 can fairly easily do whatever is done for Taiwan.
- At present, of course, there is no consensus that Niue is a sovereign state. IMO implementing a consensus that does not exist is not appropriate. Pfainuk talk 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- This has made up all of Spesh531's latest edits. CMD (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Alerted Spesh to this thread. Nightw 11:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I edited some to change their notation from that of being a state with limited recognition, but left associated state notes when they were there. That was what I read the consensus here to be. CMD (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, CMD I just left a little note on your talk page. Fill me in...I must be missing something. You're correct on geography about 99.9% of the time. So what am I missing on Niue and Cook Is.? I have to agree with other editors ....The World Factbook , National Geographic Society, every atlas that I've seen, about 95% of independent states, and the NZ govt. all consider them not to be fully sovereign....not independent states. Should they be on the list, of course. Fully sovereign?...That's WP: Fringe, yes? No authorities seem to think so. Membership in a few UN committees is something Palestine has, but we're not proposing full (bold, non-italic) status there. What am I missing? (This of course affects other pages, but I propose that we continue to use this site.) DLinth (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- /Cook Islands and Niue will fill you in completely. That 1.5 year of discussion lead to the thread at the bottom of that page. It has also informed me that the New Zealand government is happy to consider them fully sovereign independent states. Apparently. My edits to the other pages were mostly following Spesh531's edits to stop the CI/Niue being presented in the same vein as Abkhazia and Kosovo (as it is a completely different situation). I'm still not a fan of how they're presented in this table (and that'll probably apply to others) but there was some sort of (perhaps tenuous) consensus here, which I'm following until I or someone else calls it into question. CMD (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. As always, concise, well-informed, even-handed CMD logic, editing. Yes, nothing like Abhazia, etc., but that's ok because they're in a "catch-all", "other" category on this and most lists. There's no problem IMHO (as most at /Cook Islands and Niue say) with inclusion of these two on various lists......as long as they are not portrayed as fully sovereign/independent. As you know, there is a wide consensus among international geographic institutions, publishers, cartographers, the UN, The World Factbook, atlases, etc. that they are not fully sovereign/independent. WP is a compendium of those sources, not a mini-UN Gen. Assembly...Of course, WP does not override published sources and international authorities (UN) by a 6 to 5 "consensus" vote (at /Cook Islands and Niue. Yes, both entities have some level of sovereign status, as with the Faroe Islands and Greenland and others, but are certainly not fully sovereign/independent (yet), as you know.
- BTW, NZ may say (below) that "they're fine with that" or "are happy to consider" or "sovereign this, sovereign that", just, as you know, the UK said that "they'd be fine with" any number of states in the '50's, 60's gaining full sovereignty (many eventually did, some (Bermuda, various Caribbean islands) did not.) But, ironically, any NZ statement would not be terribly relevant other than an actual "NZ has today granted to and recognized full independence by Niue/Cook Is.") statement...which we've not seen....then followed by similar recognition by international authorities, the UN, international authorities, etc....which we're not even close to seeing. DLinth (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- One of the relevant points in the discussion was actually recognition by other states, based on the stated inclusion criteria. There are clear statements of recognition for the Cook Islands, but the point was debatable for Niue. (I'm surprised to see Niue actually on the list, since by my reckoning there wasn't consensus for change in that case.) It was argued that these two states' full membership in certain UN organisations does constitute recognition, but this was not a determining factor. The determining factor, as documented in /Cook Islands and Niue, was our own rules for inclusion as stated by the article.
- When it comes down to it, we have just had a round of this discussion. May I suggest that we wait a while before we start another round of it? Pfainuk talk 19:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Sovereignty dispute column
What's the criteria of this column again? Written, it states, "only states that are claimed in whole by another sovereign state are mentioned". Palestine would not qualify, since Israel does not claim Gaza. Nightw 12:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Can we accept the fuzziness here? Israel does something with Gaza. It used to claim it, now I have no idea, and I doubt Israel has a clear idea either. CMD (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Meh. I guess so. Nightw 04:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Someone changed the sovereignty status for Israel to "Not recognized by 33 states, including most Arab states." This does not seem to fit the criteria. Or does Palestine claim the whole of Israel (maybe the Hamas government in Gaza)? Grioghair (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hamas certainly does, but there's no connection yet between the State of Palestine and Hamas. Nightw 15:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Israel. What a pain. It feels that Israel fits perfectly into what should go into that column, although our chosen wording isn't that good. The wording was chosen to show that it wasn't just minor territorial claims, but the entire state in question. Israel's entire statehood is unrecognised by these countries. Is it enough of a problem to rewrite? CMD (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Really, what ever items are on this list I would expect to see in that column, since I thought that was what it was for. So I would agree with a rewrite. Nightw 16:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I also agree with the need for a rewrite. Israel is just too significant for us to ignore. Outback the koala (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Cyprus is also not recognized by Northern Cyprus and Turkey and should possibly be made red in this column. And what about Armenia..? I would however not like to see a much more lenient criteria, because that would probably result in many more ambiguous cases. The criteria are very clear at the moment, only the implementation is vague. Grioghair (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Really, what ever items are on this list I would expect to see in that column, since I thought that was what it was for. So I would agree with a rewrite. Nightw 16:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Israel. What a pain. It feels that Israel fits perfectly into what should go into that column, although our chosen wording isn't that good. The wording was chosen to show that it wasn't just minor territorial claims, but the entire state in question. Israel's entire statehood is unrecognised by these countries. Is it enough of a problem to rewrite? CMD (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hamas certainly does, but there's no connection yet between the State of Palestine and Hamas. Nightw 15:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
An IP has removed it. Sigh. How about "Only states whose entire sovereignty disputed by another state are listed." After all, if Israel doesn't meet the requirements, neither does Palestine. CMD (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. Better then inconsistency... Grioghair (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that we should aim for consistency in the sovereignty disputes that we list. So if we've listed South and North Korea, we should also list Armenia and Cyprus. Like User:Grioghair I think the current criteria seem sensible and we shouldn't weaken them to include examples where there is only a territory dispute, rather than one of sovereignty. Are there any other examples besides Armenia, Cyprus and the other states we have listed? SP-KP (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I've decided to be bold and make the change. If consensus is against me, this is the diff should anyone want to change things back. SP-KP (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've alo changed the criteria in the article for the sovereignty dispute column. Grioghair (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to bring into this column not only claiming, but also not-recognizing, you need to add information about non-recognition also for states such as Kosovo, Palestine, etc. If Your change will remain, it is necessary to supplement the information to all other not recognized states. Personally, I'm inclined to return to the original, because claiming and not recognizing is very different. Claiming in principle threatens the existence of the State (as South Ossetia), non-recognition only weakens the position of the State (as Armenia) on the international arena. Jan CZ (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Most of the information of non-recognition for other states is already in the More information column, where there is plenty of room for further notes. I also did not like it that states that only lack overall recognition where added, but it was necessary to come to a consensus on the Israel/Palestine problem. You also cannot ignore that there is a Sovereignty dispute for a state with only non-recognition. Using "None" for these states is just not correct. If it should be only about claiming, then the column should be renamed to something like "Claimed by". Grioghair (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to bring into this column not only claiming, but also not-recognizing, you need to add information about non-recognition also for states such as Kosovo, Palestine, etc. If Your change will remain, it is necessary to supplement the information to all other not recognized states. Personally, I'm inclined to return to the original, because claiming and not recognizing is very different. Claiming in principle threatens the existence of the State (as South Ossetia), non-recognition only weakens the position of the State (as Armenia) on the international arena. Jan CZ (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
So is the sovereignty of Armenia disputed by Pakistan? It is clear from the given sources that in the opinion of the Pakistani government that it does not recognize Armenia as a country. And in my opinion not recognizing a country implies disputing sovereignty. Grioghair (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Non-recocgnition and lack of diplomatic relations are closely tied concepts distinct from disputing sovereignty. A sovereignty dispute necessarily involves one country regarding a territory to be the sovereign territory of a government other than the one in control. The column cannot accommodate all instances of "non-recognition" as the the countries in that column would be endless. Under customary international law, a state can exist absent the recognition of other states. For there to be a sovereignty dispute, the other states must not only refuse to recognize a particular state, but actively assert that the particular state is not a sovereign entity.--Jiang (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- First of all, I have already raised some concerns before (see above) on broadening the criteria for the column, for also I foresaw that it might result in more countries dubiously being added. However, as stated above, Israel and Pakistan did not fit into to old criteria anymore, while people could not accept that they where not mentioned in this column. Therefore the criteria where changed. I would gladly go back to the old definition, but then a solution must be found for Israel and Pakistan (sheez.. it looks like the UN security council in here). Secondly, I don't see how a state can regard another state to be a sovereign entity, while not recognizing the state. I'm not talking about non-recognition of governments (which is more common), but about non-recognition of the country or state. Saying that a country/state does not exist seems to be the same as denying sovereignty of the state. I don't think that the exact words 'sovereign entity' have to be used for this. Grioghair (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- The idea of changing the wording is to have the wording fit the list, not to change the wording and then change the list by adding Armenia. Refusal the accept the passports of a state is often evidence absent diplomatic relations. Saying "X country doesn't exist" is not evidence, as sovereignty disputes imply that official of country Y are forbidden to utter the word X. If Pakistan disputes Armenia's sovereignty, then what does it consider Armenian territory to be - stateless territory? --Jiang (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know. Ask the Pakistanis.. maybe they think it is still part of some defunct USSR. I find the business of denying the existence of other states that clearly exists rather childish and stupid. I don't get your argument on officials that are forbidden to say the other states name. I find it hard to believe that is true for all of the other cases where sovereignty is disputed. I would like to ask you in which cases you consider there would be a 'true' sovereignty dispute, and why. Especially for Israel and Pakistan.. they don't claim each others complete territory, but Palestine is not recognized by Israel (and US) and Israel not recognized by some Arab states. Grioghair (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- In all likelyhood it would consider it to be terra nullis, that is the way the United States handles its position on the Western Sahara it recognizes neither claim to the territory and no one as controlling it.XavierGreen (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know. Ask the Pakistanis.. maybe they think it is still part of some defunct USSR. I find the business of denying the existence of other states that clearly exists rather childish and stupid. I don't get your argument on officials that are forbidden to say the other states name. I find it hard to believe that is true for all of the other cases where sovereignty is disputed. I would like to ask you in which cases you consider there would be a 'true' sovereignty dispute, and why. Especially for Israel and Pakistan.. they don't claim each others complete territory, but Palestine is not recognized by Israel (and US) and Israel not recognized by some Arab states. Grioghair (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- The idea of changing the wording is to have the wording fit the list, not to change the wording and then change the list by adding Armenia. Refusal the accept the passports of a state is often evidence absent diplomatic relations. Saying "X country doesn't exist" is not evidence, as sovereignty disputes imply that official of country Y are forbidden to utter the word X. If Pakistan disputes Armenia's sovereignty, then what does it consider Armenian territory to be - stateless territory? --Jiang (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- First of all, I have already raised some concerns before (see above) on broadening the criteria for the column, for also I foresaw that it might result in more countries dubiously being added. However, as stated above, Israel and Pakistan did not fit into to old criteria anymore, while people could not accept that they where not mentioned in this column. Therefore the criteria where changed. I would gladly go back to the old definition, but then a solution must be found for Israel and Pakistan (sheez.. it looks like the UN security council in here). Secondly, I don't see how a state can regard another state to be a sovereign entity, while not recognizing the state. I'm not talking about non-recognition of governments (which is more common), but about non-recognition of the country or state. Saying that a country/state does not exist seems to be the same as denying sovereignty of the state. I don't think that the exact words 'sovereign entity' have to be used for this. Grioghair (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Image?
The top of the page now looks bare. What do people think about adding a map or something to lighten it up. An blank grey map with political borders or even something with labels like this or this. Any thoughts? Nightw 13:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Neither of those include all of the states on our list, shouldn't we have a map that has all of them if we're going to have a map at all? I thought the commons might have something for us, but I couldn't find anything when I looked for about 10 mins just now... Outback the koala (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Statistics Table as the intro
Where did this table above the list come from? Its extremely confusing and out of place. I was going to just remove it but I thought I'd come here first. Anyone know whats up? Opinions? Outback the koala (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- My thoughts were pretty much the same. "Widely recognized" is back, it seems... Nightw 09:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Too much statistics. Grioghair (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Removed. It's difficult enough trying to classify all the grey cases without turning everything into statistics. CMD (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Now that Azawad has declared independence ([1], [2]) after seizing control over a permanently populated territory ([3]) it would seem that they meet all of our criteria for inclusion. Any objections to adding them? TDL (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. It fits criteria (a). Grioghair (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, per above comments. Evzob (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Concur. That was fast. CMD (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- It appeared twice on the list. I have deleted the duplicate. Eopsid (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Edit conflicting with me on that, you blaggard! If anyone find a source dealing with its name in English, especially its long name, please bring it here. CMD (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Languages
I've had this page on my watchlist for a while, and for a long time I've been silent on this topic. However, it has been getting very silly. User:Spesh531 has been going on a crusade adding more languages to the countries. Looking through the history he has done this to so many countries, in many adding languages that are in no way official with no sources.
The latest one really forced me to act - [4] Really? Adding the name of France in German with the reason "german significant from ww2" ?? That's almost insulting and frankly irreverent. He used the same argunemt for adding Italian to Croatia [5] even though I would have thought that one might have a much better historical logic behind it given the power of the Italian states in the Adreatic, it still is a stupid reason. This is another example [6], really? Adding the name of Bulgaria in Turkish "it was under the ottomans, so turkish is important"? For a start the Ottoman Empire didn't even use modern Turkish, secondly Bulgaria has been independent of the Ottoman Empire for over a hundred years, and in case you noticed the Ottoman Empire doesn't exist anymore. There has never been a country ruling Bulgaria that used "Bulgaristan – Bulgaristan Cumhuriyeti" as an official name for it.
There is a lot of adding languages to countries because they used to be part of their empires, Italian to Albania, Russian to Armenia, Hungarian to Romania and Austria. I don't doubt that there are some Hungarian speakers in Austria but do we really need the Hungarian for Republic of Austria in this article? (It is also slightly unbalanced under that logic that Hungary doesn't have its name in German I should point out...). If I were from these countries I would be insulted.
Secondly that also has been the other issue, adding many names in languages spoken there that don't have anything to do with the country - in this case in English. Just because over a third of French or Finnish people speak English don't mean we should have it listed there. This is doubly stupid because the name is in English already in bold, this is the English Wikipedia. (Frankly I see having the name in English twice as totally useless, why do you need it to say: Guyana – Co-operative Republic of Guyana English: Guyana – Co-operative Republic of Guyana? But that's another issue.) Adding it to France or Finland is just pointless, I'm pretty sure almost every country has a good number of English speakers so why not add English to every country?
This is looking a bit rant-y, almost personal, so I'll sum up. I don't disagree with everything User:Spesh531 has done, and he's not the only one either, I did note several examples of people adding minority languages to Greece and similar things. My point is this We need to formalize what languages are used. I would personally rely on the articles, they should know and it is good to have a standard across the wiki.Andorra just used Catalan in the top of the infobox so just use that. Haiti uses French and Creole. South Africa should include all it's official languages, Ukraine only has Ukrainian in the infobox but Russian and Crimean Tatar in the lead so I would include them. There is List of official languages but it is not in the right form for this, it's still not a bad idea to consult that too. It's not a perfect system but it would be better than the free-for-all that exists now. Any comments?--23230 talk 09:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia former featured lists
- All unassessed articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- List-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- List-Class List articles
- High-importance List articles
- WikiProject Lists articles
- List-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- List-Class International relations articles
- High-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles