Jump to content

Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Early discussions

Can there be a new section or even page on countries in the making? or anyone have any sites of this? post them please. like i heard russia and ukraine were becoming one country, is this true?

What about historical but presently defunct countries? -- Extinct countries, empires, etc.

I must say that I object to getting rid of the CountriesX system completely. I don't mind much seeing all the countries here on this page listed in a table (though see below). But I think there was no harm in leaving the individual pages alone.

We could have the letters in the table (the big A, big B, etc.) point to individual pages for that group of countries.

My objection to having all the countries here on this page are two-fold.

First, this page is now a giant monstrosity. Any list over a certain length ought to be broken down alphabetically, I think. For example, over on actresses and actors, I anticipate that we would prefer, eventually, to not have a huge and useless list, but instead to break it down alphabetically and perhaps by era (date of birth, for example). But in any event, even if we did have one big page of actors, we should also have alphabetically-broken-down pages, etc.

Second, I think that the use of tables for this sort of thing ought to be discouraged, for the same reason that people complained (rightfully so, I think) about the biology page. Yes, it looks nicer, but it also makes it harder to use the data for other purposes (by other projects, for example), and it makes it harder for newcomers. Simple straight text is really nice for many reasons.

Well, it is broken down alphabetically, as it ought to be.  :-) But why on separate pages? I don't think it's a monstrosity at all. I like being able to see all the countries in the world from one page; it's kind of a pain to have to click through to the "CountriesA" page just to find the entry on Andorra. I'll grant you it would be nicer if it were alphabetized horizontally rather than vertically. That wouldn't take long to do, though.

As to the second objection, well, since I was the first one to object to the biology page format, I guess you're right. How about this? --LMS

I like the second form better. It's more accesible for devices that do not render tables well --AstroNomer

It would be nice to have some sort of a jumpbar on the top of the pages A B C D E F .. where clicking on A takes you to the A's, etc.. I'm not sure if this can be done with this software (Wiki) Rob Salzman

28/05/2001 - I've moved the country listing by continent to By continent. I think this makes navigation easier and helps to make wikipedia useful -- WojPob

I agree, WojPob.

I think the next Really Cool thing to do would be to find a public domain/free atlas, and start uploading maps. Or e-mail them to Jason. If someone does that, it will force Jason to give some people some sort of capability and permission to upload image files to the Wikipedia server. --LMS

My understanding was that the images on the CIA site are also in the public domain and could be used. LDC objected to the format (jpg), though, saying the quality was not high enough. Personally, I think the qualities of these particular jpgs are high enough, and would have added them to the site if not for my concerns about the size of them and the resulting download times for people like me on dialup.  :-) the relevant part of the CIA site starts at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/indexgeo.html; an arbitrary example of one of their maps is https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html. But I have to admit that my main interest is in where the country lies in relation to its neighbors, and that this is of course :-) not what everyone will be interested in--other people may want to know population distribution, altitude, etc. And others may object to the somewhat cartoonish quality of the CIA maps, with their bold, thick boundaries. (One suspects that for the CIA every issue is so clearly defined....) --KQ

As Tim Shell pointed out, the U.S. Department of State has published information in the public domain at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/bgn/ ; all of it is free (as in beer and speech) for use unless it has a copyright notsice posted. I've added much information on Albania, attempting to integrate it into the CIA info (which is also in the public domain) and have added a new subpage (apologies to Larry), "foreign relations." I had a question for the general Wikipedia public, though: the Department of State has yet more information specific to the relations between the United States and Albania. I have not added it, as (IMHO) it seems too specific and begs for equally detailed information about its relations with other countries, which I can not provide. Do you think this is the correct approach? --KQ

But why not? If the information is factual & encyclopedic, who cares if it's very detailed? You might not want to, though, just because it doesn't seem worth the effort. I could understand that.

I do think that this poses a problem for subpages.  :-) You could put it under U.S.-Albania foreign relations, I guess. --LMS

I'm coming around to your views about subpages, I think. I wouldn't mind changing all of them in the "countries of the world" context (albania/government etc.) except changing them presents the new problem of what to change them to: "Government of Albania" or "Albanian government"? As inconvenient as they are, subpage titles still fit the most information the most concisely.

I think you're right about the US-Albania foreign relations: probably it is too specific to be of much interest to most people. --KQ

Chechnya should not be included here yet. The peace treaty of 1996 deferred independence talks till 2001, and most governments considers Chechen territory part of Russia -- Piotr Wozniak

Taiwan is, Chechnya should also be.

When I think "Countries of the World" my mind taxonomizes it into two things. The first is a table with all the countries, listed by continent first and alphabetically second, which includes statistics such as pop., GDP per capita, growth rate, doubling time, etc. The second, and hierarchically equal part, is a spiel about the distinct differences between a country, a state, and a nation. ( Looking them up in a dictionary doesn't do any good because Webster is a sellout. )

I'd be happy to write said spiel if people would like, although I do admit that it doesn't, in fact actually matter that much.

--Seckstu

Why is Christmas Island listed as a country? It's Australian territory, and I don't think there's any particular desire to secede (though if the current imbroglio with the Norwegian ship carries on I'd be starting to consider it if I lived there . . .. :) )

That was probably me responsible for that. I don't know; I was just mindlessly adding everything from the CIA World Factbook without much considering if it's in fact a country. Perhaps we should have a separate page listing various territories? But then Puerto Rico and Western Samoa would be moved off the Countries page too, I guess. --KQ

Puerto Rico is a country associated with the US, it has olympic representation, and it is has a national identity. If palestine is in or taiwan, Puerto Rico should too- palacios
Please place new comments at the bottom for better tracking. The Republic of China is not a dependency, nor is the State of Palestine. There is grounds for removal for the State of Palestine since it does not exercise sovereignty. Please note that Taiwan is no longer listed. It has been replaced with the ROC which does exercise sovereignty and contain the charateristics of a state. Olympic representation is also given to Hong Kong and Macau, which are legally part of the PRC. (The same with the VI, etc.) That doesnt make them separate "countries" as in states. They are self governing dependencies. --Jiang 04:59, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'd move PR as it's obviously under the sovereignty of .., not so for the others -- User:Docu

there is already a page for dependent states at Dependent areas. That is probably where Christmas Island belongs. Chistmas Island was once administered as a dependent state. Now Australia tends to claim it is an integral part of Australia, but under international law it may still be a dependent state. By the way Western Samoa is NOT a dependent state. It is a fully independent nation in its own right.

Yes, I am again thinking one thing and saying another. Western Samoa, former name of country now known as simply Samoa, not to be confused with American Samoa. Anyway.

I notice some overlap between Countries of the world and dependent areas--for instance, Saint Helena, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Hong Kong, etc. I'm becoming increasingly leery of potentially volatile discussions, so let me just point out that there is an overlap and comment that I'm not taking any further action on it.  :-) --KQ

I'm thinking of doing away with all the subpages stemming from countries of the world. What do you think of renaming them all to for instance: 

History of *
Geography of *
People of *
Government of *
Economy of *
Communications in *
Transportation in * 
Military of *
Foreign relations of *

"Transnational issues" would be integrated w/ "foreign relations of." Any suggestions? (aside from "get a life"?) ;-) --KQ

I say great idea -- subpages are just plain ugly! -- Simon J Kissane

Should England, Scotland and Wales get listed as individual conutries?

It depends upon what you want the list to be. Scotland, England and Wales are separate countries and used to be separate nations but they are not at this moment separate nation-states. Except perhaps in the sporting world where they each send separate football teams or other sporting teams to international events. -- Derek Ross
The problem is the page name is contradicted by the first sentence of the page. There is no doubt that England, Scotland and Wales are countries but they are not sovereign states which is a different thing. --BozMo|talk 13:17, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It is just a question of semantics. Scotland and Wales are not countries in the sense of this list. They might be historical or in sports, but they are not sovereign countries. Gangulf 16:20, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't see why Scotland, England and Wales are not countries in the sense of this list. They each have a permanent population, a defined territory, government, and they clearly have strong relationships with the other members of the UK and Europe. If "government" means "no external control" thus making Scotland not a country due to control from London, then France and Germany are not countries either because of external control from the European Parliament. Or doesn't the European Parliament count?
What would be the basis to consider Scotland and Wales as sovereign nations, since they are clearly part of another sovereign state. The difference between the UK and the EU is that the UK is somewhat of a form of a federation and the EU is somewehere between a federation and a confederation. As far as I know the EU doesn't claim to be a sovereign state. Gangulf 18:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed there is a Basque insisting in putting Euzcadi (spell, please?) in the list of countries. I think we could create a third list (apart from countries of the world and extint countries, of nationalities whose terriotories lay in one or several countries, but for which there is at least a fraction of that population wanting to be a country of its own. The basques would be on that list, probably also the kurdish people, Tibet maybe, etc. what do you think? --AN

We could start a new page Nations without a country Joao

Regarding the Basque Country issue, I must say that the Wikipedia community has established absolutely no rules about which countries should show up in this page. Given the fact, I do not understand why nations without the collective rights of self-determination as Euskadi or Tibet or many others should not appear (remember Woodrow Wilson's ten points for the achievement of peace in Europe in 1918?). And, believe me, a Country is something framed by a people, a culture and a land. There are also nations as the Roma or Gypsies who lack a precise land of their own. So, I please ask people to be tolerant with weak countries and nations as Tibet, Roma or Basques...I think real politik is based upon hypocresy and is the weapon of the powerful countries to dominate. Many thanks. Txino

Basque Country is in the list under Spain, it's not a country or a dependent territory. The purpose of wikipedia is to colect factual information about the world. If Basque Country were acepted as a country, then someone would have to change the articles about Spain and France. Joao

As much as you may not like it, the major aspect of defining a country is whether other countries agree with you. People by themselves can define a culture, but not a nation. Hence we recognise Tibet and Taiwan are they are recognised by many nations, even though China refuses. Myanmar is recognised as such (and not Burma), even though the USA refuses to do so. It is quite probable that the fate of small "wanna-be" countries is dictated by the larger countries. This makes for an unpleasant reality, but it IS the reality. Every state in the United Nations is recognised here, as well as countries recognised by at least some of the major nations. Basque is not recognised by ANYONE. This may be unfair, it may well be wrong and bigoted and evil, but that's just the way it is. That's not our fault. - MMGB


Well, I know it is not your fault but lets answer the cuestion: Why are you reconignising in your list countries like some isles that only have a garrison?.

And being unable to resist blowing hydrogen at the fire (where'd my eyebrows go?), I have to ask why Palestine is on the list....

Obviously, because Palestine is recognized as a country by many other countries.

Let me repeat two things I said above: "I was just mindlessly adding everything from the CIA World Factbook without much considering if it's in fact a country" and "I'm becoming increasingly leery of potentially volatile discussions, so let me just point out that there is an overlap and comment that I'm not taking any further action on it." The page does have its anachronisms; for those I apologize; however I'm not interested in engaging in political discussions, and for that I do not apologize. I had no political motive in it; I simply didn't think it through fully. Change incorrect information to your heart's content; you have my blessings but not my involvement.  :-) --Koyaanis Qatsi

Let me propose the following simple standard -- its a country if it has an ISO 3166 code, an Internet ccTLD, or is a dependent territory (as opposed to mere metropolitan subdivision) of a country with one. That way we completely avoid politics. -- SJK

PROPOSAL - (Different to SJK's) How about we use this page to only list United Nations recognised countries. That is simple and non-controversial. We then have another page for all the others, with links to "dependent territories", "non-universally recognised countries", etc, etc. Because the second page will be very loosely defined, we can handle the Basques, Catalonias and "Hutt River Provinces" of the world. At the top of the page we have a disclaimer acknowledging that these are only UN-recognised countries, and a prominent link to the "other" page. - MMGB


actually, that page exist already, it's called United Nations Member States....so we still don't know what do we make with this one....maybe transform it in just a links page, with links to united nations, non-universally recognized, dependencies, etc? What IS a country? --AN

Problem is that not all states are members of the UN. The UN, technically speaking, does not and has no power to recognize states -- only the states can do that. (It can in some cases direct states to withold recognition of a purported state, though.) Switzerland and the Holy See are not UN members, and everyone in the world recognizes Switzerland at least as a country. In the past a lot more countries haven't been. We could maybe use the member state list, plus the state permanent observers to the General Assembly list. But then there still may be states with universal recognition not on either list (I don't think there are any at present, but there have been in the past.) -- SJK

Is it Taiwan (Republic of China, I think) an state permanent observer?
Taiwan is an observer, but it is not listed as a "state observer", but rather under "International organizations and other entities". It shares that list with a wide range of other things -- Palestine, the European Union, and even some NGOs, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. -- SJK
No, the ROC is not an observer. --Jiang

Joao, you told half the truth, as the Basque Country is also under French statehood. I don't agree that a country existence depends on the recognition of the NU. Somalilia is not recognized by NU, and Western Sahara is not recognized by at least half the countries in the world. As I told, a country requires to exist a people with a culture, a land and some think a "spirit" or self conscience. What other States recognize are States (Kingdom, Republic etc). States have a Government of its own and that's the difference between countries and states. It is paradoxical that there are countries without states and states without conutry. Bethinks me of Tibet and Taiwan. --Txino

I don't know who did this page, but it's fantastic! I hope it will convince Wikipedians to overcome their fear of "list articles" - this is a great little category system. Yeay! :) Martin 23:45 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, it gradually emerged from previous versions through contributions of various Wikipedians! Thanks. -- User:Docu

Format of the countries' entry

BTW shall we include Holy See or rather Vatican City? Personally, I prefer the current solution, i.e. under "Holy See", to note "see Vatican City" and to list Vatican City, which includes the 'country' article (already in accordance with the template), rather than to list Holy See as the later is mainly about the status of the 'See' in international law. -- User:Docu

In these lines, I reformatted the other entries in a similar way, linking the main country articles. Further I added a notes section for additional information about the countries' status.
The entry for the Vatican, (country article currently at Vatican City), is formatted as follows:
Holy See (see Vatican City4)
Vatican City4 (Holy See)
  • In "Notes:" about the status/sovereignty of countries listed":
4 Vatican: see Holy See
--User:Docu

Countries listed

Someone just removed Chechnya from the list. What is our criteria for listing a "state"? Does Palestine belong? --Jiang 23:21, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Criteria: recognition by other countries? The notes section can reference articles explaining which ones, when, why, etc. Another solution would be to include countries and areas similar to lists based on the CIA factbook or ISO 3166-1.-- User:Docu

The factbook and ISO 3166-1 list dependencies, which obviously don't qualify. --Jiang 06:21, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

BTW, for the Palestinian territories, which is (are) the country article(s) to include: e.g. State of Palestine, Palestinian state, Palestine, Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, West Bank? Currently the entry is "Palestine (see "State of Palestine"3)". Information from the Factbook is at Gaza Strip and West Bank, but there is no direct link on State of Palestine to these. -- User:Docu
A possible solution, in the lines with the discussed format and the articles currently in Wikipedia, would be:
Palestine (see Gaza Strip, West Bank)3
The other articles could be referenced in the notes section. -- User:Docu

--Perry 06 Dec 2003

I don't entirely understand the alphabetization. China is titled as "People's Republic of China", but alphabetized under China. Yet, Mexico is not titled as "United States of Mexico" (is that its official name ? Surely someone can correct me :))

Are there guidelines for how far back in time the forward entries go ? I mean, Zaire and Burma are listed, but I don't think the Ottoman Empire is, or Persia.

--User:66.44.102.169

"Zaire" and "Burma" are both listed in the opening paragraph of the country articles. Turkey's doesn't mention Ottoman Empire, so I wouldn't add it, afterall there is a more specific list. -- User:Docu.
People's would be looking for "China" under 'c', but we state the full name to differentiate it from the Republic of China. The official name of Mexico more aptly translates into "United Mexican States," but there's no other country with "Mexican/Mexico" in it so there's no need to disambiguate.
Actually, I think Zaire should be removed. "Burma" is still regularly used by countries such as the US that oppose the military regime that renamed the country Myammar. --Jiang|(Talk) 22:01, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What happened to Euzkadi (Basque) and Catalunya ?

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)

Unrecognized self-declared countries

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)

I think the decleration of independence matters more then recognition. If every country in the world were in the UN then it could decide but what right is it of the UN to decides whats independent and whats not? Controling territory is the core of the cause. People can have a country for any reason.

I listed Somaliland because from 1991 til 2000 it was "Somalia's" only goverment still operating. I list puntland for the same reasons because the nation's authory covers that range unlike Somalia's capital. I listed Chechnia because the almight former Sovit Union could not actually contain the rebelians. I listed Abkhazia because it had emerged thevictor following the Abkazio-Georgian War and Gergia was unable to reassert control over Abkhazia. South Ossetia has been able to succesfully pust Georgians out as well. I figure if you cant even control the territory whats the point of widtholding recognition? Next thing you know they could annex you. Vital Component 04-17-04 2:52 am EST

Chechnya fails to be a country

At the present time, Chechnya fails to be a country. Past discussions whether or not Ichkeria could be treated as a country do not matter because some time passed since then and the situation is significantly different.

For the sake of clearance, I will use Chechnya in sense of "modern Chechen Republic of Russian Federation" and Ichkeria in sense of "modern Chechen Republic of Ichkeria".

Despite Russian Republics have a great authonomy, they are not considered independent countries. It they had, we should list all Russian Republics and, probably, US states in this list. Therefore, I will argue about Ichkeria.

Let's consider both theories:

  • Constitutive theory:

Ichkeria fails to be a country, because it is not recognised as a country by any state.

  • Declarative theory:

These considerations often rely on the Montevideo Convention, stating: The state as a person of international law 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. (a) there's no permanent population in Ichkeria. Rebels often migrate to Georgia, Ingushetia and Dagestan, and back. (b) there's no defined territory for the Ichkeria. Most territory of Chechnya is controlled by the government of Chechnya, while the government of Ichkeria controls only minor locations that are permanently changed. (c) government of Ichkeria fails to meet basic requirement to govenrments.

We don't list here territories of Columbia controlled by rebels. We don't list here country of Basques.

We don't list here my flat, despite I hereby declare it to be independent country.

We shouldn't list Chechnya too. Therefore, I remove it. Drbug 13:46, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On this list, we list de facto independent countries (those at list of unrecognized countries) too. If the year were 1997, then we would obviously list it. The situation now is less obvious.
Your flat doesn't count because you fail to assert sovereignty. You are unable to avoid paying taxes. Your decrees are followed by no one. (c) and (d) are not satisfied. It's a bad analogy. Rebels with guns have power. They have someone who claims to be the president, and therefore a government. --Jiang 22:25, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sealand

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)

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)
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)
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^^ FiP 14:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
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)
I don't think so. one more reason not to put it in the list ^^ FiP 14:26, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
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)


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. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 22:41, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cross-referencing

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)

That just complicates matters. This should be limited to independent states. Change the page name if that's a problem. --Jiang 02:28, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Peking Duck 11:31, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Total number of sovereign states

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)

Kosovo

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)

POV formatting

Making the links [[People's Republic of China|China]], [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], and [[Republic of Macedonia|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)

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)

We should be more neutral by saying outright that it's the "Short name (English)" rather than labelling it the "country". I dont see why the link should be limited to the first column. We have Eire linked too. It's just that using common names means the first column gets linked more often. If we don't use short names for article titles for a particular reason, then dont link it as such. It's still POV. --Jiang 06:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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)

The international view is against both countries' claims over the entire regions of Ireland and Macedonia, respectively. This is why they are not known in diplomatic contexts by their short form. Linking defeats the purpose of killing the first link. --Jiang 21:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, another attempt. I changed the links in the first column to:

Making the links [[People's Republic of China|China, People's Republic of]], [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland, Republic of]], and [[Republic of Macedonia|Macedonia, Republic of]]. I do not think that is POV. --Gangulf 18:37, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

These are no longer common names as labelled by the table. --Jiang 18:57, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New Format

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)

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)


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)

Federal structure

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)

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)

Kosovo revisited

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)

the decleration explains kosovo's intentions and adds to their credability. like i stated before being in rebelion does not make you a nation although a decleration of independence added sure does. Its why we dont count Colombian rebel strong holds as de facto states seperate. Serbia's intentions are ANNEXATION ABSOLUTELY while Kosovo's are independence and de-unification with Serbia. They hace accomplished the latter. De facto victory for independence has been obtained. And what of Casamance in Senegal and succesionist in philippines? whats everyones take on that?--Vital component

Stil I do not understand what you want. Do you want to add Casamance? --Gangulf 20:46, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd like everyone's insight on that issue sense my info on this breakaway is very limitid and the very few support sites for this nation are in French. I want to know everyones insigh b4 i add a few more nations --Vital component

Major Edit

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)

I am the one --Gangulf 10:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC), please visit the new layout without table at Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/test

Too much vertical expansion makes it harder to find items on the list. I prefer the current tabular fmt --Jiang 11:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

I also dont like the new tabular format. Merging colunm labels created only more confusion and makes the entries harder to read. What was wrong with the old format? --Jiang 04:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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)

im afraid i have yet more countries to add in. Casamance, Cabinda, Puntland, Jubaland, S.W. Somalia, Kurdistan(iraqi), Kurdistan(turkish) Sri Lanken succesionist, and the Philippines succesionists. Also the issue of N. Ireland's status is of interest to me. Vital component--

Western Sahara

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)

I corrected it now. Gangulf 14:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Isn't Palestine somewhat similar? Many countries recognize Palestine as an independent state, but de facto it is not a sovereign state. I also question why Western Sahara is listed under "Sahara", when it is universally known as "Western Sahara" in English. john k 16:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

Ogadenia

According to the article Ogadenia it is under the control of Ethiopia, thus why is it bold? Gugganij 13:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)
Thank you. Gugganij 11:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think Jubaland, Kurdistans, Casamance, Kosovo, Tamil, and Cabinda should be re-added. Jubaland is highly obscure but not under Somalian Federal Control and hasnt been from 1998-present. The Kurdistans have yet to fully be re-occupied. Kosovo has long declared independence but in the happy White World of dramatics in Europe people get screwed royally simply because there cause is not a SHOW to remember. The Balkanians of Kosovo suffer because of the rediculous establish of israel and the belief that everone sould at least get one country. I GUESS ALBANIAN IS ALL KOSO-ALBANIANS GET however the Europeans judging them now ironically blamed WWI GERMANY for the sins of the Germanic-Austrians and Hungarians. Even more ironically Europe tried to seperate Austria from (soon to be Nazi) Germany for unclear reasons. It was only by force that Hitler had Nazi Germany annex Austria. Gabon has had the same idiot of a leder, Bongo in office sinse 1967 yet Kosovo from 1992-present has had over 2. THE MONYVIDEO COVENTION THE MONTEVIDEO CONVENTION! FUCK THE MONTEVIDEO CONVENTION. HOW MANY COUNTRIES IN ATTENDANCE ACTUALLY FOLLOWED THOSE RULES TO BE NATIONS? BESIDES YOUR PATHETIC WHITE DOMINIONS NAME ME ONE! I DONT BELIEVE THAT ANY COUNTRY IN THE CONTINENT OF SOUTH AMERICA AT THE TIME HAD DONE THINGS THE "MONTEVIDEO WAY!!!" Im sure that historic mandate was signed by South Americans with one hand holding a pen and one foot holoding down the ravaged remains of the (Amer)Indian race. The montevideo convention bahhh. How many of the countries in attendance were empires? The british dared to show their heads at the bloody thing after the Ashanti spectacle. The Kiwis of New Zealand after using their filthy white hands to cover the mouths of Tongans who protested to the Leage of Empies cough cough i mean Nations! It took long enough for Timur to throw off the Indonesians on top of them raping them into the ground! Bahhhhhhhh. Were is Biafra, Baganda, Arawak, celebs, Basque, Assyria and all the gotdamned rest. LET THEM RISE LIKE THE PHOENIX FOR ATLEAST ONE DAY ON ATLEAST ONE WEBSITE. It seems as if your nation predates the international community by atleast one year then youare exempt from everything. Casamance has yet to be recognize but sense 1982 has been leading succesful resistance. Tamil also has kept Ceylon/Sri Lanka at bay sense the 1970s. Cabinda has been screwed by racial politics and European cowardice but was promissed independence by portugal. It is currently occupied by Angola but its resistance could be compared to France, not Vichy France from 1940-45. Why do we RECOGNIZE FRANCE'S INDEPENDENCE AS BEING BEYOND RECORDED TIME INSTEAD OF 1945 BUT YET WE RECOGNIZE ALBANIA HAS BEING INDEPENDENCE SINCE 1912 OR SO with all Italian occupation put aside. Why is Western Sahara de feacto independent? Why is the "PEOPLE'S" REPUBLIC so prominent when we search WIKIPEDIA FOR China even though there are about 27 or so countries that dont recognize them infavor of the ROC on Taiwan? Why isnt Communist ChinA de facto? THE DAY WE START CATORING TO FORCE ON THIS WEBSITE IS THE DAY Wikipedia.COM TURNS TO THE LEAGUEofNATIONS.COM

IM FUCKING CHANGING IT BACK!

I SWEAR, THIS IS CORRUPTION AT ITS BEST

user:vital component-

Tibet

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)


Jiang why do all you Asians have to bunk in California? The more you disrespect the Eastern U.S. Coast and the lazier you get with traveling the more I think its time to deport to San Fran Bay lovin' bastards!

But on with real buisness gentlemen. The Third Criteria is Viable Resistance. What seperates Tibet from Palistine is that the West Bank seems to be independent on maps and not under Israeli control. Tibet has NO areas of resistance pushing back Chinese annexation. If Chechnya isnt a real country why hasnt Russia truly ended the war? The (semi-) succesful resitance is why Chechnya meets the requirementd. They arnt free but Russia hasnt gotten on top of her because Chechnya still pushes Russia away derailing the ultimate goal. Because Tibet is completely subdued a goverment in exile is as about effective as Borneo declaring a protectorate over South Vietnam.. Lets look at a de jure state East Timur. From 1975-1999 it was a de facto colony of indonesia. Indonesia's annexation was recognized but what could did that do? IF politics are killing Tibet were the hell are the 27 or so countries recognizing Taiwan and riding in like the calvary? Somalia is still a de jure state with no true goverment or federal control. Somalilnd is a de facto state with a goverment AND federal control. They are examples of why this de facto de jure recognition B.S. is pointless. If NK could get weapons into Kosovo rest assured they'b be at the map and in the '08 Olympics. Force is the biggest factor. vital component-

COTW?

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

Vatican City

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)

The Pope, his staff, and the Swiss guards do not comprise a permanent population? john k 21:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Vatican has a defined territory (delimited by law with Mussolini in 1929), a permanent population (regardless of the fact that they are all men), is internationally recognized (as a permanent observer state in the UN), and has diplomatic ties with several dozen other states. Furthermore, it prints its own stamps, has its own country-code top-level domain, creates internationally-recognized passports and has many of the other trappings of any other state. Feel free to put a note if you want, but that note can't factually deny the Holy See's statehood. (Further point of clarification: The "Holy See" is the name for the internationally-recognized legal entity, and Vatican City is the name of the majority of the territory over which the Holy See claims sovereignty. For instance, Castle Gandolfo is a part of the Holy See, even though it is outside the borders of the Vatican - making it an exclave). Justin (koavf) 21:22, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

“De Facto”

Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, Moldova, and Somalia should not have superscript ones next to their names because they are not de facto states. Just because a “de facto state” exists within a countries boarders dose not make the whole country a de facto country. The majority of the international community and the United Nations recognize the above list of countries as independent states. Zntrip

I agree. Having separate superscripts for de facto states and for de jure states which contain within them de facto states would solve this problem.

New Page

This page should be split in to two new ones. One for real countries and an other page for de facto countries.

I do not see that as the solution. I would suggest to use the italic only for de facto states and make a remark/note at the de jure states that include de facto states. Electionworld 06:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes. De facto means real. It is worth distinguishing de-facto-only, but they are more like full states than like Catalonia and Tibet (let alone micronations), and it is much more useful to keep them together in this way.
And yes, lacking de jure is much more significant than having less than total control of their de jure territory; they should be reflected differently.
--Jerzy (t) 18:03, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Subsections for the 21-screen table

If there is a WikiProject with this list in its purview, i'm gonna be really irked. Since there is no heading indicating this has ever been discussed here, and no project is mentioned on the page, i'm proceeding in hopes i have the right solution.

This table is way to much trouble to search for a country you can't quite spell. I think i can solve that with about 30 subsections for alpha ranges such as Ab - An, D, and V - Z.
--Jerzy (t) 22:02, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Well, that was less onerous than i anticipated, and if it gets reverted, i promise not to cry audibly.

For the record:

  • the page was 47K in length, 38K of it in the table.
  • it's now 50K, of which 42K is in the table.

Which is to say, if the consensus is that the page needs to be subdivided, don't blame the subsections (which have increased the table by only 3-4K).
--Jerzy (t) 23:22, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

I do not minds subdivisions, but I do not like the table to have a different format in each subdivision., we might solve this by creating a list (not a table). Furthermore I would like to have the standard sectioning in A-Z

2 Examples:

  • Belgium - Kingdom of Belgium
    • Dutch: België - Koninkrijk België
    • French: Belgique - Royaume de Belgique
    • German: Belgien - Königreich Belgien
  • The Netherlands - Kingdom of the Netherlands
    • Dutch: Nederland - Koninkrijk der Nederlanden
Waiting for reactions Electionworld 06:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I made a new layout. You can find it at Talk:List of sovereign states/new layout - Electionworld 08:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===>New layout: My only problem with it, is that some of the notes are missing. Otherwise, it looks good to me. Justin (koavf) 14:05, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

1) I assume that "different formats" above refers to different sections dividing the horizontal space between the two columns somewhat differently. Browsers do this in an effort to use as efficiently as possible the space that is available in the window on the individual user's screen. The question is whether a slightly prettier (smoother) form could outweigh the fundamental problem i was addressing, which is that scrolling thru a 200-item list, or table, means impeding access. IMO, the answer is no: few users are going to use the list in a way that causes the eye to follow the vertical dividing line (offset at section boundaries) between the columns. (Rather, the eye normally will follow an imaginary column comprising about the first 3 letters of the country names.) It is artificial and misleading to consider the list in a way that draws attention to that particular irregularity.

2) As to indented list vs table, i doubt that the intimidating table markup, which impedes updates, has any virtues sufficient to compensate, so the list is appealing to me so far. (This list's half-life is not a particualarly short, but still, our forte here is wide participation in editing. And there will be changes needed -- frightening tho that is for those most affected by the corresponding meat-space changes [!].) However,

as a demonstration of a minor modification, i have, in the A section, removed the blank lines between countries, which IMO waste screen space and thus impede access, with no significant improvement in readability.
(I also inserted empty comments between countries, as an aid to editors in finding where countries start.)

3) As to one-section-per-initial, what is the benefit? Excuse me, but accessibility works, and relative to that, pretty sucks. If i am missing some functional benefit, enlighten me. The numeric and Top links distract to no purpose. I ended up with 21 sections, virtually all of optimum size for accessibility (hmm, optimum for my window size, so smaller or larger might work better for the average user -- but in any case, nearly equal size, which makes for efficient access.) You are casting the user adrift in sections like S, which is about 4 times as long as even typical letters like L and P, not to mention the index space and attention that you squander on separate entry points for Q, W, Y, and Z, and even goddam empty X! And this is at the further expense of denying the user the automatically generated ToC for the other 5 sections of the page (or the expense, and frequent obsolescence, of a hand-maintained substitute).

3a) Such effort would better be spent on recruiting a developer to provide directives like _HORIZTOC_ and its corresponding return to default, _VERTTOC_, so that we could use automatically generated TOCs shaped like this:
The count
The sovereign states
. . . A |--------B--------|--------C--------| D-E | F-G | H-I | J-K | L |-------M------| N-O | P | Q-R |-----------S------------| T | U | V-Z
. . . ....|| Ba-Bh | Bo-Bu || Ca-Ch | Co-Cz || ..................................... || Ma | Me-My || ....................... || Sa-Se | Si-So | Sp-Sy ||
Notes
Other listings
Related topics

(This simulation assumes (in addition to directives i just invented) the same grouping of countries, but converting it to a two-level structure, with some existing headings subordinated under additional headings B, C, M, and S. I did not use that organization when i broke up the table, bcz it would be burdensome to readers (4 new lines in the standard vertical ToC) unless this horizontal-within-vertical ToC were available.) This example works with my MS IE; you may have adjust the numbers of hyphens and periods if you really want to see it optimized. The real thing should probably use HTML tables without internal dividing lines displayed. (These are not working lks: I haven't demonstrated the automatic piping that would be involved.) (Note that, if you prefer, the same facility would permit VWXYZ to replace V-Z as a section name.) For anyone interested, i could also find some examples of the hand-built "distributed ToCs" we built for complex LoPbN pages before giving up and taking the advice to use the automated default; these could also be specified using directives in the same spirit as the two above.

3b) (Another ToC-support innovation appliable here might be a separate ToC facility for tables: optionally, a table could have a ToC -- independent of the page ToC -- at its head, or head and foot, or at editor-specified break points within the table -- that would facilitate access to the desired portion of the table, and (for the multi-ToC case) navigating from place to place within the table. There is an example of a three-copy-ToC for an indented list (one copy each at top, bottom, and one near top of the page that contains it); whiile the nested-template technique that makes it almost automatically maintainable is not applicable here, it may also be an instructive example of letting the distribution of entries within the alphabet influence the structure of the access mechanism.)

4) Finally, the indented list format you suggest reduces the page size somewhat, but not below 30Kb, so not too much effort should be put into perfecting the layout until it becomes clear whether or not the actual list is going to even stay on one page.
--Jerzy (t) 17:53, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

With most browsers, the size isn't a problem. I wouldn't mind the size. I think we can agree on a list over a table. I see the arguments against to notoc used now, so we can take your example. On the other hand, I really prefere the alphabet, but am ready to exclude the characters without countries.

See also the discussion below about sovereign states.

Palestine

I made some changes, which i hope are sufficiently nPoV, to the Palestine footnote (7), acknowledging a relationship between the PA and both the (not fully recognized) State of Palestine and the (probably much more fully recognized future) State of Palestine. Two of my intentions are

  • to capture the fact that Palestine is some kind of partial step beyond being "recognized by a series of Arab and Muslim countries", and beyond most other countries that this list treats as in-between cases: IMO, it is misleadingly incomplete to mention the partial recognition without mentioning
    • the potential for the PA to play a role (which many believe is now in progress), other than as a fully acknowledged state, in getting rid of the footnote, and
    • that role being acknowledged by states that don't acknowledge a Palestinian state.
  • therefore to express, by echoing it, the ambiguity that diplomatic language thrives on:
    • the countries that presently recognize a State of Palestine don't have to admit any discontinuity between what they recognize now and what they recognize later. (They can describe one state, existing continuously since '88, creating the PA to server its purposes.);
    • the countries that presently don't recognize it don't have to admit any identity between what they don't now recognize as a state and what they later do. (They can describe the PA as preceding the existence of any such state.)

--Jerzy (t) 06:07, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Why sovereign states?

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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Archive_1&oldid=1247916069"