Talk:List of countries/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about List of countries. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This is not my but User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's proposal made after watching the disputes over the word sovereign and other issues at the List of sovereign states article. It's formulated (a bit emotionally)) here. Basically it amounts to a)merging these two lists by sectionising this list (something like recognised states, unrecognised states, dependent territories etc) and b)adding local names of the countries to this list from that one.

The vote is intended to find out opinions of other people who did not participate in the discussion over there so the questions and comments are welcome.

So, do you want to keep a separate list for independent countries (both de jure and de facto) or do you support merging it with this list? :Alaexis

• I understand 3 subquestions: I support merging the other list (states) into here (countries). I have a neutral oppinion about sectionizing 245=193+9+38+1, i.e. I don't mind either way (one section alphabetically, as is now, or 4 sections, each alphabetically). I support using the English names for this list, both short and long. The local names, in my oppinion should be explained in each entity's article, or if you want, in footnotes, as argumented several times by Lexicon.:Dc76 12:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. You cannot establish any list without defined criteria, unless you are a recognized authority and can impose the contents of the list. I can understand what are the criteria for the List of states, I cannot for the List of countries. Ask yourself “why do I want this list?”; merge the list with another one will not bring the answer. If this list is not needed, delete it, but don't spoil other articles. --Juiced lemon 14:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The proposal steems out of the fact that while we DO understand the criteria for inclusion in the List of countries (definition in the introduction), we DO NOT for inclusion in the List of states (no 100% clear definition is given). As a consequence List of states varies from List of UN members+Vatican to List of countries, per the POV of the editor. Future Perfect's suggestion to megre into here was a mild way of saying "let's errase List of states, since its info is already here".:Dc76 15:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There exists an inclusion criterion for the List of states - if the entity is called independent (de facto or de jure) by some neutral sources then it deserves to be in the List of states with appropriate comments. Alæxis_¿question? 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is not any lesser definition in the introduction of list of countries. Only the linguistic description of the contents, like every area with K and R in its name: not very pertinent. Sorry, but this list is based on void. If you can't improve it, nor prove it's useful, delete it. --Juiced lemon 23:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. This option (showing sub-entities underneath the sovereign states) was already extensively discussed (without the idea of a merge of another list) on this talk page, (I believe it was introduced by The Tom), and it seems to have been rejected. We already define our terms sufficiently at the top of this article. Lexicon (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support. While the other two lists are "variations on a theme", the variation is minor and probably 95% of their material overlaps. The details of the merger process can be – and no doubt will be – debatable, it needs to be kept in mind that lists like these are primarily navigational aids to articles offering greater detail in their own right. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Get rid of List of states, and the next thing you know, we'll be up to our necks once again in people trying to turn this list into a list of states. There's obviously appetite for compiling these separately. The Tom 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose "State" and "Country" are very different concepts (i.e. Wales is a country, but is not a state). Merging them is incorrect. Pirveli 20:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose England is a country and a nation, but it is not a state. The UK is a state, but it is a union of 3 1/3 nations and countries and the country of Ireland is under the control of two sovereign states. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Close of the vote. With 2 supports and 5 opposes, the proposal is rejected. List of sovereign states and List of countries are to remain separate lists. :Dc76 17:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there are a number of different list of states, territories and such like. Having read the Annex to the list of countries though it is clear to me that Kosovo does not belong on this list. That article, which outlines which places should and should not be on the List of Countries states the following reasons why entities should not be included, each of which applies to Kosovo:

- Autonomous areas legally part of sovereign states, such as Catalonia (Spain), Tibet (People's Republic of China) and Chechnya (Russia); but excluding Åland, which is recognized by international treaties.

- Substate units of federacies that enjoy considerably more independence than the majority of others, like Zanzibar (Tanzania).

- Various disputed or occupied territories, see the List of territorial disputes.

- Places under the control of UN Peacekeeping Missions.

- Entities not claiming sovereignty with de facto control over their territory.

- Nations without their own states, many of which are members of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO).

Perhaps if there were just one reason not to include Kosovo, we might have some debate, but it's clear to me that it is not intended that a place such as Kosovo (see Constitutional status of Kosovo) does not belong here, however valid the claim of the Kosovo Albanians to statehood might be. To summarise the present status of Kosovo (for which also see United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244) it is an autonomous province of Serbia (effectively a substate unit of a federacy) which remains under Serbian sovereignty but which is administered by the United Nations. It is the subject of a long-running dispute between Serbia and the majority ethnic-Albanian population and discussions are underway as to future status. The provisional institutions of self-government, created under the UN mission, desire but do not presently claim independence, nor do they control the territory.

I should also not that somone has added 'except Kosovo' at a later date to the 'places under the control of UK Peacekeeping Missions' entry in the Annex article. Clearly this is someone looking to justify the entry of Kosovo here: it is clear that no exception to this was meant. I will go ahead and remove that addition.

Interested in people's views. We need a pretty strong argument for inclusion, though. DSuser 15:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I see someone has gone ahead and removed Kosovo from the list. Makes sense - I support it. DSuser 16:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo has been listed here for quite a few years and its deletion has been discussed before (see archive). There has never been a consensus on its removal and therefore it has remained. You need to have a consesus to remove it here before you remove it on the artical page. I believe it should be on this list as it is similar to Hong Kong and other areas where it has its own government and is not completely controlled by the soverign poewer it is attached to. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 09:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Shocktm, I don't doubt your good faith here. There is a good reason that the Annex to the list of countries page exists, which is to identify which sorts of entity we are not including on this page. Kosovo falls into six of those categories of entities which we should not include. We therefore need a good reason, and a consensus, to include it; it is excluded by default for those six reasons. This is a province under UN administration, like plenty of other places in the world. A lot of work has gone into this at the Kosovo, Constitutional status of Kosovo and Kosovo status process pages; please have a look at those articles and the detailed discussions on their talk pages if you have time. Just because Kosovo does not appear here, does not mean it does not have the right to nationhood, or that it might not be independent at some point in the future; it just does not qualify now. And I'm afraid that going through each of those reasons on the Annex page and adding 'except Kosovo' just does not cut the mustard. Lets discuss this? DSuser 10:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Though it is legally part of Serbia, its status has been special due to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244. This is enough reason to include it. The annex is not a justification for not including entities, but is just a list of entities not included. Kosovo has its own administration supervised by the UNO, which makes it different from other entities under the control of UN Peacekeeping Missions. BTW: Kosovo was for long time in the list, we had a lot of discussions, so there should be first a consensus on deleting before we delete. Electionworld Talk? 13:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo just doesn't have special status: according to UNSCR 1244 it is a province of Serbia under administration by an interim civil presence; that makes it no different to every other entity under the control of UN peacekeepers. UNMIK is supervised directly by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) as are all peacekeeping operations. The annex is precisely there to define which entities should be included: it's not just a general discussion board. There are six different parts of that Annex which disqualify Kosovo from being a country, and trying to claim they should read 'except Kosovo' is not sufficient. This is an encyclopaedia, is it not?!

If Kosovo has been on this list for a long time then this list has been incorrect for a long time. To justify Kosovo being on this list we would need to show that each of those six elements is incorrect. The most significant reason that Kosovo is not a country is that it does not claim to be a country; the UN, the Contact Group and UNMIK are all clear that Kosovo is a province; Kosovo Albanian leaders dropped the claim to independence in 2002, otherwise they would not now be suggesting a potential universal declaration of independence in November of this year. How can a place which does not even claim to want to be a country, be a country. And that's on top of the list of six from the Annex. I'd welcome all comments on this. DSuser 15:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Electionworld on this, Kosovo is a sui generis entity right now which should be included per the previous arguments on this issue. —Nightstallion 15:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sensibly, we don't include other 'sui generis' (meaning unique-ish) entities in this list either. The European Union is not listed here as a country and neither is French Caledonia, both sui generis entities, for the good reason that neither of them are countries. If we were to include Kosovo here we would 1) be claiming for that entity a status which it does not claim itself, 2) ignoring the very criteria we have set ourselves for this list and 3) be in conflict with other articles in our own encyclopaedia such as the List of unrecognized countries, List of United Nations peacekeeping missions and List of subnational entities, let alone Constitutional status of Kosovo.

If Kosovo is not a recognized country and not an unrecognized country, in what way is it a country? Even the CIA world factbook doesn't treat it as a country. So far I've heard a lot of 'ooh it's just different' and no substantive fact. There are at least a dozen reasons I've given why we would be wrong to consider including Kosovo as a country. What of our six criteria we would be ignoring? What of the conflict with other articles? What of the absolute failure to find any claim from the UN or Kosovo itself that it even claims to be a country? Does not the fact that you need to put a UN flag in there tell you something? It ain't a country. Its a province. DSuser 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

New Caledonia is listed (if that is what you ment by French Caledonia).-- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 00:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, it is there, but because it is on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories not because it happens to be a bit different. Your answers to the three point above? DSuser 11:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You started saying that French Caledonia was not in the list. It is clear that the status of Kosovo is now arranged by the UN resolution, which enacts a separate administration. It is not a normal autonomous province of Serbia, it has a special status based in this resolution. It makes sense to list it, in the same way as it makes sense to list Aland and Svalbard. Its status is regulated by international resolutions. Electionworld Talk? 14:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So no-one is capable of answering the there key points above: that to include Kosovo here would be 1) be claiming for that entity a status which it does not claim itself, 2) ignoring the very criteria we have set ourselves for this list and 3) be in conflict with other articles in our own encyclopaedia such as the List of unrecognized countries, List of United Nations peacekeeping missions and List of subnational entities, let alone Constitutional status of Kosovo? The status of Kosovo is not arranged by anything (please see Kosovo status process for confirmation that UNSCR 1244 definitely did not determine the status of Kosovo); it as administered by the UN, just like all those other places run by the UN, which we don't include here, for the good reason that they are not countries. Kosovo is not a country. Kosovo is a province: please refer to Kosovo and Constitutional status of Kosovo.

Anyone got a good reason we should ignore 1) 2) and 3)? Huh? No? DSuser 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

1 It could be included with the comment: Kosovo (Kosova and Metohija) is an autonomous province of Serbia currently administered by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government under the supervision of the UN Interim Administration Mission. I don't think there is anything bad in this text 2 One of the criteria that was in the list before you deleted it was 1 internationally administered territory (Kosovo). 3 I do not see the conflict: the article doesn't claim Kosovo to be an independent country. Which other places do the UN run (peacekeeping is not running? Since at the moment DSuser seems to stand alone, I revert his deletion of Kosovo, keeping in mind earlier debates on this issue. Electionworld Talk? 18:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you still have not addressed the core problems and given sufficient reason why Kosovo should be included. You should not be including this entity as a country when both it and the United Nations consider it a province. It does not claim independence and has no special sovereign status. It is merely administered by the UN; adding a rider is not sufficient. The reference you make is not a 'criteria' for inclusion; you have sourced that from the introduction of the main article which merely lists the number and types of countries listed below. You have not addressed the central problem here, which is that Kosovo should not be included in this list under six separate criteria listed on the Annex to the list of countries, namely: it is an Autonomous areas legally part of a sovereign state, it is a sub-state units of a federacy, it is a disputed or occupied territory, see the List of territorial disputes, it is a place under the control of a UN Peacekeeping Mission, it is and entity not claiming sovereignty with de facto control over it's territory and it a nation without their it's own state which is a member of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO). For each of these six separate reasons given in the very Annex which lays out whether entities should be included, Kosovo should not be included here. Plus, to include it would conflict with that whole list of other articles here, quite aside from the list of sovereign states. Please refer to Kosovo and Constitutional status of Kosovo to confirm that Kosovo is a province not a country.

There being insufficient presence here to claim a consensus in favour of inclusion, and with all of the weight of evidence pointing strongly against inclusion, we will need to keep Kosovo off the list for now. Please reply to each of these points in detail if you would like to argue for inclusion. DSuser 13:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo is still de jure part of Serbia and it even hasn't yet declared independence. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been quite a lot on this issue in The Economist recently here is a sample:

• Kosovo: What price independence? The UN is considering the tricky issue of Kosovo's future Apr 3rd 2007
• Kosovo and Russia: Veto threats: Kosovo is heading for independence whatever the Russians say or do Mar 22nd 2007, (this page includes a like to UNOSEK)
• Kosovo's future: A new battlefield: The Russians have staved it off for now, but unilateral independence for Kosovo may still be coming Jul 12th 2007
• Kosovo: Eyeing independence: It could happen in November Jul 20th 2007
• Kosovo: Out with the UN, in with the EU: The West seeks a way around Russia's veto in the Balkans Jul 26th 2007

It seems to me reading these reports that it is premature to call Kosovo a sovereign state. The Wikipedia dispute over the status of Kosovo/Kosova is also a good reason for making this page into a redirect or a disambiguation page. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The crown dependencies are clearly part of the main body of the UK and its constitute kingdoms, Not separate nations so they should be taken off the list. --J intela 03:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

“

None forms part of the United Kingdom, being independently administrated jurisdictions, nor do they form part of the European Union.

”

This is what is written in the article about Crown dependencies. Either you or that article is wrong. Alæxis_¿question? 05:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, do you know if Chechnya has at least some recognized "country entity" status for being included into the list? --Andersmusician VOTE 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, they are under Russian control and are a sub-national entity/republic (their version of a province or state) of the Russian Federation. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 22:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I was one of the people that elaborated this list into the form it has had for some time, not being limited to independent countries. I defended the thesis that country and sovereign states are not the same. But time by time the debate starts again on the inclusion of entities. One of the repeating discussion is the debate on an entity being a country. My purpose with this list was to have a comprehensive list of entities the world is divided into. If the name of the list makes that difficult, we could rename the list. I have further updated and enlarged the list with a new title in my user area (User:Electionworld/List of world divisions, but would like to suggest to that with this entry after renaming it into List of world divisions or similar. Electionworld Talk? 18:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Other suggestions: List of International Political Entities, List of National Level Entities, List of International Politites, List of National Level Politites, etc. Of course we could just leave it as it would effect all the List of Countries by xxx pages. I think the term country is fine and is consistent in its usage in such things as ISO Country Codes, Telephone COuntry Codes Country Code TLD, etc. Changing this page would only cause confusion and would not stop the people who are unhappy with the page from making more changes. BTW I do like seeing all the dependencies listed including the unihabited ones but I would not list Guantanamo Bay as it is leased. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 00:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it definitely should be renamed, because it includes a number of entities that are not "countries". I also think that the use of the term "countries" carries over into the article and creates some OR problems. For example where it says near the top that "On this list are 245 entities considered to be countries." Considered by who? There is an effort at a disclaimer and clarification in the intro, but I think it is negated by the text I have quoted. I am amazed that this is a featured list. 6SJ7 04:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the nomination page, it isnt exactly surprising. Seems increasingly like a WP:FLRC to me when some folks are beginning to admit that the parametres set for this article is more a case of WP:OR than WP:V.--Huaiwei 04:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I ageree with Huaiwei. What is the point of this page if it has a name like "List of world divisions" it is a meaningless title one can slice and dice the physical world and social world many many ways. For example if have just divided the word two ways! We have lists for "ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, list of country calling codes" "Country code top-level domain", etc so what is the point of a list of states base on the dialing codes, and there is already a lists of countries ? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

'Countries' is definitely the wrong word (at least in English). I can see that there might be value in a list which is sovereign states + other independent entities (UN observers) + generally unrecognised states + dependent entities, but that does not = country. The main question seems to be how you would distinguish between a dependent entity and a sub-state entity. I'd suggest that the difference is in their position in international law: what you seem to be searching for is that list which includes all entities which have the right in international law to claim independence (which most dependent states do), and so therefore could easily be independent states in their own right. This would exclude quite a few places on the present list, though, including most of the unrecognised states, but would also bring in quite a few places such as England and Scotland which are indeed 'countries'. Your problem is precisely the present problem in international law (and the cause of the disagreement on Kosovo in the Security council): is independence a matter of sovereign law (so the limited list) or a matter of self-determination and de-facto control (so the longer list)? Is it really a list of countries that you're looking for? Is it a list of 'sovereignties'? Or a list of states? Present practice is that a state has: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states (Montevideo Convention). It might be useful to have a list of states under this definition. What you seem to be looking for is something more inclusive, and so add entities which have less than all four of these characteristics, but you descend very quickly into murky waters: this stuff is at the centre of the debate in international law and international relations as to what a state is. You also come up very quickly against different forms of state, in particular the difference between unitary and federal states and federacies. Then you have the difference between dependent territories and 'non-independent territories', which might be defined as 'territories that are disputed, are occupied, have a government in exile or have a non-negligible independence movement'. There's definitely something here though. Perhaps we need a table of international entities which includes either their status (state/country/other sovereign entity/dependent territory/non-independent territory) or their characteristics (Montevideo) or both? Or is that becoming a bit ambitious? DSuser 13:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the content of List of countries has a good alternative content for the present list. I think it in accordance with the entry country. Every term has its disadvantages: the word State is also used for divisions of federations. Nations is used for e.g. first nations. etc. I suggest to replace the content with the list in my alternative list. The proposal to rename is withdrawn. Electionworld Talk? 19:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"State is also used for divisions of federations" True but not the phrase sovereign state --Philip Baird Shearer 20:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Lot of the discussion is caused by the listing of dependencies etc. as countries. I think we can solve the discussion by rebuilding the list. I made an alternative list in which only recognized and the de facto (unrecognized) countries and Antarctica are listed, see User:Electionworld/List of countries. With each country, the dependencies and special territories are listed. I propose to replace the content of the list with that content. The proposal to rename is withdrawn. Electionworld Talk? 09:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a good, fresh approach to this issue to me... I support it. —Nightstallion 20:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I support this idea. With a list formatted this way we open up the door for other sub-national entities to be added under many of the sovereign states. Indeed, the list as it is presented by Electionworld already includes entities which nobody would consider countries, such as Antarctic claims, other uninhabited dependencies, and the "dependencies" of Guernsey. Also, to list it that way would seem to remove the idea of "equality in countriness" between sovereign states, dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, etc., that the list as it currently exists is attempting to convey. Lexicon (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. - The Antarctic territories of Chile and Argentina (and probably some other nations) are considered integral parts of those countries, and so absolutely should not be on the list. Also, overseas regions and departments of France such as French Guiana and Martinique also should not be on the list, as they are no different than subnational integral entities of any other nation. To include them absolutely would open up the door to states, provinces, and autonomous regions of other nations. Lexicon (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Three remarks, in the new form, dependencies are not considered countries. Furthermore it is the question what to do with the Frenc DOM's, but is their relation to the motherland really different from SPM, St Barths and Saint Martin? I elaborated the list further to solve the problems with some of the Antarctic claims and the French DOMS. I am still doubting what to do with the uninhabited dependencies. I think they can be included since they have separate legal statuses. Electionworld Talk? 22:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In the new form, if dependencies are not considered countries then they should not be listed at all. After all, why would we list these specific "non-country" divisions of a country and not others? And then we're equal to a "list of sovereign states", which already exists. Secondly, yes, French regions and departments do have a different relationship to "the motherland" than overseas collectivities, etc., because they're considered part of the motherland—they're integral divisions. And integral divisions of nations, such as the overseas regions and departments of France, have never been included in the list. They're equal in status to the regions and departments on the mainland. If you include Martinique and Guadeloupe, you have to include Haute-Garonne and Aquitaine. And then you have to include Wales and Scotland. And then you have to include Quebec and Alaska, and on and on and on.... Lexicon (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the French overseas departments, but I still do not know/doubt if some of the overseas collectivities, especially Saint Barths, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon and even Mayotte, have the same position, being an integral divsision of France. Electionworld Talk? 07:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Also, if the dependencies are not considered countries, then that means no single country has ever controlled another, except in cases of occupation without annexation. After all, if the Cayman Islands aren't a country, then neither were Nigeria, Egypt, South Africa, Canada, Madagascar, Suriname, etc before independence. And such a listing would also be difficult to reconcile with the facts in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Aruba and Netherlands Antilles articles (according to those articles and the Dutch Kingdom itself, the Netherlands, Aruba and for now the Netherlands Antilles are separate countries within the Kingdom - and not in the manner of constituent countries of the UK). Plus, where would the Palestinian authority or Palestinian territories be listed? Under Israel? That would lead to massive revert wars. And if not then where? If they are listed separately, then it would not be a fair list, since their are obviously not comparable to say the Republic of Ireland or to Italy (they are comparable to Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in Western Sahara - which then leads to question of where the SADR would be put). Even list of sovereign states has those entities (plus others like them with ambiguity surrounding their status) being listed separately from the main list. Antarctica's listing is also problematic (without getting into the idea of uninhabited countries) - if all of Antarctica is listed, then how can the various territorial claims on Antarctica also be listed as well? And what of the unclaimed portion of Antarctica? Where does it go if ininhabited territories are listed and if all of Antarctica shouldn't be listed to avoid conflict within the list? I don't think I can support this idea; the list as it is seems fine to me, with alphabetical listing of countries and with differing fonts to show their status. If people feel that dependencies shouldn't be listed as countries, it is probably because they are linking "country" with "sovereignty" (the two do not have to go together as you already pointed out in the vote on Kosovo). In that case, they would have come to right place to learn the truth....an encyclopedia. Facts should not be changed or rearranged to suit the notions of those who are uncomfortable with the facts themselves, and the fact is that countries do not have to be independent. At any rate, changing the format of the list won't change the issues being discussed as to whether or not Kosovo should be included since no one who has supported Kosovo's inclusion has not acknowledged that Kosovo is still a de jure part of Serbia (everyone in the vote agrees on that). And not a soul has denied that Kosovo is a province (but I will deny it is recognized by an international treaty - UN resolutions are resolutions, not treaties). All this fuss seems a bit over the top for a province that will probably declare independence and separation anyway at some point in the near future(and thereby would have a great case for being on the list in some way).72.27.88.245 05:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The present status of Kosovo, autonomous province of Serbia under United Nations interim administration, is the result of an UN Security Council resolution. That is not a treaty, but it is an international regulation. Electionworld Talk? 07:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Even though it is an international regulation, that doesn't mean Kosovo can be compared to the four entities still on the list that are recognized by international treaty. Take a look at this article by a law professor about UNSC res. 1441 [1] (especially see the 9th paragraph). It outlines why UNSC resolutions can't be compared to treaties or other international agreements. And even if Kosovo is mentioned in a UNSC resolution...then what of it? Countless UN resolutions (both SC and GA) have mentioned the territories occupied by Israel, but that doesn't mean that the Golan Heights or Sinai were ever considered to be separate countries (the West Bank and Gaza are different because the PLO declared those areas as Palestine and the PA now runs parts of those areas - however, at the time the West Bank and Gaza were not considered countries either). As I outlined earlier, UN control does not change the status of the area (e.g. Cambodia, Bosnia or East Timor) and likewise neither can UN resolutions. Otherwise the Golans, Kashmir, Sinai, southern Lebanon, Darfur and various other places should be considered countries. The UN can resolve that a territory should change its status and become independent (and if not already a country, then become a country as well), but that can only happen with the consent of the controlling power. For instance the UN is committed to eventual decolonization, but today there are still numerous dependencies and none will become independent through a UN effort without the consent of the mother country. UN trust territories were slightly different as were League of Nations mandates, because those territories were governed by the controlling power with the assent of the UN (or League of Nations). Nothing in UNSC res. 1244 is even remotely similar to any UN resolution regarding trust territories (and mandates). So Kosovo is an autonomous province governed by an interim UN administration established under a UN resolution, but by that same resolution Kosovo is not (and was not established as):

• a UN Trust Territory
• a League of Nations Mandate
• a dependency

Kosovo's current status is not a result of the UN resolution. It's current status is that of an autonomous province of Serbia. It is governed temporarily by the UN, but that is not part of its status anymore than UN government changed Cambodia's status from anything other than the independent state of Cambodia. Before, during and after the UN administration in Cambodia, the country's status never changed. Likewise for Kosovo. The only thing that changed was the character of government in the province. Ask yourself this, if a UN resolution established an interim UN administration for the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka, the Basque areas of Spain or for California would those areas then become separate countries? And if when the interim UN administration ended and all those areas remained a part of Sri Lanka, Spain or the USA, what would they be then?72.27.58.165 05:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with the arguments of Lexicon and User:72.27.88.245, I deleted the uninhabited posessions as well as Anarctica and the claims on Antarctica. The dependencies of dependencies are now in the footnotes, not in the list, as is Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. They are right about that. There are now three main differences with the present form:

• dependencies are listed under the administering country
• the layout is different (table, better to read)
• more information in footnotes.

I prefer the alternative form. Furthermore it can reconcile pro and cons to Kosovo on the list, since it is now clearly put under Serbia. Electionworld Talk? 07:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

See #Delete this list above. I think that you are rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic. This list should either become a redirect to List of sovereign states or a disambiguation page.

I have noticed your opinion, but there doesn't seem to be much support for that. Electionworld Talk? 10:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is a list of countries then England and Scotland should be listed. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a valiant attempt to find a resolution. The main problems are: the ambiguity of the term 'country'; and the distinctions in international law between sovereign states, de facto independent states which might be partially recognised, dependencies and sub-state units. We have lists for each of these separately but none collectively. I think what electionworld might be seeking is a list of all those entities which are more than just sub-state units. This serves some purpose as you then begin to see the whole range of entities which have an automatic claim to sovereignty in international law: those which are already sovereign and those which are not quite sovereign by choice or circumstance. Would a list of this sort be of interest? To some, perhaps, but the distinctions would need to be annotated in detail, I would think; and as someone above pointed out, you'd have to include the non-sovereign states under their sovereign claimants, which would lead to all kinds of edit wars. Keeping the lists separate preserves that ambiguity: not that ambiguity is what we should be seeking, necessarily. And you'd still have debates about places like Kosovo, as they are not (yet, and perhaps never will be) dependencies or sovereign states. Tricky. DSuser 14:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to make sense to me, they are UK territories in Cyprus I thought. I don't see any mention of Denmark in the Akrotiri/Dhekelia article or vice versa. Were they supposed to be under Cyprus? Thought I should ask before I edited. It is the same way as Burma after Burkina Faso. Dhekelia is alphabetically the next in the list. Electionworld Talk? 22:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's all it's attempting to do, notify people who are looking up Burma or Dhekelia where to go to find those entries (Myanmar and Akrotiri and Dhekelia). I'm not really sure why there's an indent before the "See..." links, though. Lexicon (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a small arrow available? Electionworld Talk? 07:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

DSuser and I have drafted a complete analysis of why it would be a good or a bad idea to include the EU in lists of countries in some form (either directly in the list or as a special note outside the list). We'd kindly invite all editors who are interested in the EU and/or lists of countries to take a look at Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries, read all of the arguments presented and then state their opinion on what a sensible compromise might look like. Thanks! —Nightstallion 09:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What about Sealand? Should it be here or not, and if not - why? Stansult 10:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't; micronations are excluded, confer Annex to the list of countries. —Nightstallion 11:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize this has been hashed through before, but "both those that are internationally recognised and generally unrecognised" (per intro) excludes those "countries" which are recognized by no one, i.e., Transnistria et al. Either we exclude WP:OR countries -- and applying Montevideo to create countries where none are recognized is WP:OR, or we change the article introduction up front to indicate that it includes territories recognized by no legitimate government. The current footnote conventions of "Oh, by the way, no one recognizes them" is completely insufficient. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article begins with : This is an alphabetical list of countries of the world, including independent states (both those that are internationally recognised and generally unrecognised) . the second section explains which countries are included. Electionworld Talk? 07:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

But are not the frozen conflict zone territories completely unrecognized? Mutual recognition amongst unrecognized territorial authorities (e.g., Transnistria/South Ossetia) does not constitute "generally unrecognized". If the list contains unrecognized territorial authorities, it must state that up front, otherwise the clear implication is (unless you read the fine print) that these territories are somehow somewhere viewed as a legitimate countries.

    It's one or the other: state the list includes completely unrecognized territorial authorities or remove those authorities from the list. It's deceptive to try and have it both ways by including an arm-long list of explanations and disclaimers. There are other, appropriate, lists for those entities in question. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

But it remains the case that the entities are de facto countries. The list is not limitd to de jure countries. Electionworld Talk? 18:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Electionworld, what's the problem? How can the first sentence exclude those which are unrecognized? "General unrecognized" includes those countries not recognized at all (i.e. universally "unrecognized") and those countries which are recognized by a few countries (such as Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus). It's just a way of phrasing. Another way of phrasing that sentence would have been "both those that are internationally recognised and those recognized by few, if any, other countries". Of course, one can immediately see that the second way of phrasing it is unnecessarily lengthy. A slightly less verbose way of phrasing it would be "both those that are internationally recognised and those not universally recognized". But again, it means the same thing (and is still longer). Also what footnote conventions are we you talking about Peter? The ones at the end of the article? If so, then you should have noticed that long before you even get to the footnotes and before you get to the list, the introduction of the article has an entire section that specifically outlines the various countries and the recognition or lack thereof (see: List of countries#Entities included in this article). Now what more is needed than an entire section devoted to detailing those countries which are universally recognized, not universally recognized and universally unrecognized? If the implication that you draw is that "generally unrecognized" means that it is recognized somewhere by some other country then that is your specific interpretation. If the reader doesn't bother to read the section on "Entities included in this article" (which is not "fine print") then that's their problem. This is an encyclopedia and it is assumed that the readers can (and should) actually read the article in its entirety. If they don't and end up misunderstanding as a result, then that is the fault of the reader not the article.72.27.92.79 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I earlier raised the question of a new format for this page. There were no real objection to my proposal and the remarks made helped me improving that list. Before I replace the content, I want to inform you better. The new list can be found at User:Electionworld/List of countries. I feel quite responsible for the list, since (as you can see at the archived sections of this talk page), I made a lot of revisions in the old list, including the inclusions of a lot of entities.

• The present-day list leads to discussions on which there is no real agreement. The new list lists all UN members and the Vatican as countries and adds de facto countries (frozen conflicts), dependencies and special status regions as sub-items with the recognized countries. The new list doesn't say or deny that such an entity is a country. The de facto (want to be) countries and dependencies are clearly marked
• Palestine and the Sahrawi Republic have separate entries, since it is not generally recognized that their claimed territory (totally) belongs to Israel and Morocco. More or less the same goes for the Republic of China, which has limited de jure recognition, but has a lot of de facto relations. The other de facto countries are generally de jure recognized as being part of another country.
• The new list is formatted in a table and includes now the native official names.
• a col has been added to list the status of the item. Justification and other remarks are in the footnotes.
• Previous decisions on inclusion are respected. Only the entities in the old list are in the new list. But there is more info in the footnotes. E.g. in the footnote with Serbia there is a remark on Kosovo.
• The new introduction starts with a definition as being found in country and refers for more information to that article. The list itself is not the best place for discussions on what a country is.
• The inclusion section has been redrafted.

I would like to replace the content in a short time, but will wait some days to see if there are many objections. In the mean time I will continue to 'improve' the new list. Electionworld Talk? 07:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not better or worse than what exists now. It's prettier. The sub-entities need a level of indent though. Visually all the subs of the UK and USA run into each other with USA lost in the middle. SchmuckyTheCat

I added indents to make it more clear and working on the romanization in the table instead of in the notes Electionworld Talk? 10:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I raised a real objection (see Proposal for new structure: Which was: I think that you are rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic. This list should either become a redirect to List of sovereign states or a disambiguation page. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The section in your new list called "List of countries" seems to me to be a list of soverign states not a list of countries. For example Albania is a country but "Republic of Albania" is the name of a state (that you call "English version of the (longer) official names") not the name of a country. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This new proposal does not resolve the issue over the fact that England and Scotland are countries and only appear as a footnote along with Northern Ireland that arguably is not a country because along with the Republic of Ireland have territorial control of the the country of Ireland. If the new list is only "a sovereign territory, most commonly associated with the notions of state" then this page should redirect to list of sovereign states. As can be seen in the next section to date most of those who have expressed an opinion on the matter have suggested that this page becomes a redirect to that page. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. If notice the definition of country in country (an article I didn't write) , it is clear that it is related to sovereign areas. Scotland, England and Wales are not countries in that sense. I do not see why the Republic of Albania is not a country, I cannot see any reason for that in the article country. Electionworld Talk? 12:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Scotland is a country it is not a sovereign state. There are many meanings of the word country, you are using one of them. In which case why not redirect the page to the article [List of sovereign states] as that is what you are claiming the list is? --Philip Baird Shearer 17:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I once disagreed with a drive (by a politically-motivated individual) to rework the country article to reflect its multiple meanings and that it can refer to just about any political entity as per English dictionaries, because most of us will be aware that by common usage, "country" is usually taken to mean a fully-independent state. But it is obvious that whatever opinion I should have on that issue, both are clearly at odds with this list, as this list fails to conform to either definition. Just what purpose does this list serve then?--Huaiwei 12:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to follow the definition used in the article country. I still think the new list is at odds with that definition. Electionworld Talk? 13:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The country article makes it clear that there are many confusing meanings of the word and they do not even cover all the meanings in the OED. As the Wikipedia country article makes clear "The casual use of 'country', 'state' and 'nation' as synonyms leads to confusion. Confounding this is the often confused official use: for example, the United Nations is actually a body made of 'states'; and the countries constituting the United Kingdom are sometimes called the home nations." --Philip Baird Shearer 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So with that, I suppose we can start adding anything from Scotland to Tibet to Kurdistan? And also Aceh, Maine, London and Lagos! The term "country" according to Merriam-Webster goes something like "a: the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship b: a political state or nation or its territory"[2]. Who's stopping anyone from insisting that his backyard is his birthplace? Either we be consistent with our usage here, or we turn this page into a disampg page with a list of less-disputable terms...or even delete it.--Huaiwei 02:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe I raised a number of real objections to your list and even the country article noted that dependencies are listed together with states (it didn't say with their governing states) in lists of countries...as per this current list. Why reinvent the wheel? This list is a featured list (while the list of sovereign states isn't and the country article isn't a featured article, much less a "good" article). Besides if the purpose of this list is to only "list all UN members and the Vatican as countries and then add de facto countries (you even have to call them countries as you can't call them anything else), dependencies and special status regions as sub-items" (which can be interpreted as sub-units), how will this resolve the various "discussions on which there is no real agreement" that the current list supposedly generates? People will still clamour for some merger with list of states (especially if dependencies and so forth are sub-items) and if "The new list doesn't say or deny that such an entity is a country." (which by the way makes the new list ambiguous, since if the list is supposed to be a list of countries people will wonder why entities are on the list that aren't specifically defined as such (even by someone)). It will in fact be a whole lot easier for people to argue that since the sub-item entities are confirmed or denied to be countries then they should be removed for the simple reason that a list of countries should only have countries. The reason the current list generates debate is because a number of persons come to the page with the confused notion that "country=state=nation". But that is certainly not so. For instance, let me ask you this...was the French Empire a single country? Was the German colonial empire a single country? Was the British Empire a single country? If they were then dependencies should never be added to any list of countries in any capacity whatsoever (not even as sub-items). And if dependencies cannot be referred to as countries, then the term "independent country" is redundant and should be corrected in literature wherever possibly. Even the term state can be confusing as there are sovereign states (e.g. USA, UK, Germany) and non-sovereign states (e.g. Western Australia, South Carolina, etc). Thus as the word state can refer to both sovereign and non-sovereign entities the current name for the "List of states" has to be "List of sovereign states" as any other title would imply that all states should be listed. This list of countries is simply that: a list of all countries. It is not a "list of recognized and independent countries that are members or permanent observers of the UN" or a "list of dependent countries" or a "list of unrecognized countries" (that already exists ) or a "list of countries with disputed boundaries and legal status". It is simply a list of countries, and anyone coming to this list to argue otherwise is arguing based on their opinion not on what the title or the introduction actually says. As for those who would dispute the inclusion of those areas which are disputed, I would challenge them to go to the Cayman Islands or Somaliland and start asking which country they were in. I rather doubt the answers they would get would be "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or "Somalia". Dddly enough you never see any calls for the name of "list of unrecognized countries" to be changed or for that article to be deleted which means people coming here to call for the deletion of unrecognized countries from this master list of countries are either being hypocritical or do not know about the list of unrecognized countries.72.27.57.162 19:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:List_of_countries/Archive 1#Delete this list

To date refactoring and summarizing those who have expressed an opinion in the "Delete this list" section in the Archive:

Keep the page and the contents.

• This list defines its terms well. It is also a featured list, meaning it has been recognized as one of the best on Wikipedia. Lexicon (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• We're not claiming that these and only these entities are countries. It's just a Wikipedia list made for easier navigation. Alæxis¿question? 20:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• From what I rear only a few people want to delete this list, most want it to remain the same.-- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Electionworld did not express an opinion in this section but more recently said: I have noticed your opinion, but there doesn't seem to be much support for that. Electionworld Talk? 10:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC) and proposed; Proposal for new structure - limited to 'countries' and add per country information on dependencies etc. Electionworld Talk? 09:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• FWIW, per Lexicon and Alæxis. Quizimodo 10:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Make the list a redirect to list of sovereign states

• ...The concept of country has many meanings and is wide open to POV issues. I suggest that this list is deleted and the page is redirected to list of sovereign states. Philip Baird Shearer 14:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• I understand that this list of countries is just for help. Gosh! why do you keep a non-Encyclopedic page in the Encyclopedic space? --Juiced lemon 22:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC
• I also agree, a list of sovereign states would be far more helpful than one that synthesises a number of definitions in this manner. TewfikTalk 04:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• I agree too; this list is inherently original research. Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• I think I tend to agree with those who propose deletion. ... Perhaps someone should propose for deletion and see where we get to. DSuser 18:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Make the list a disambiguation page

• Instead of deleting this list, I would propose turning it into a disambiguation page and provide links to List of sovereign states, Dependent territory, List of unrecognized countries, List of extinct states, List of territorial autonomies, and List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement. --Huaiwei 15:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Huaiwei. But.. -Philip Baird Shearer 08:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that those who have been claiming that there is not much support for making this page a redirect, have not read the archive section in the same way as I have and I would be interested to hear their opinion. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Only five persons of the many people how edited the talk page since you raised the question agreed with a deletion/redirection. That is not sufficient and the persons who agreed did that because of what was called POV or OR issues. The new list I proposed is less open to POV issues and includes as far as I can see no OR. BTW, I can image that we merge the renewed List of countries and List of sovereign states als List of countries. Electionworld Talk? 12:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Six have expressed an opinion to trim this page. Only four have supported its retention. sovereign states has a precise meaning list of countries does not. If this is a list of countries why not include England and Scotland as they are countries although they are not sovereign states? --Philip Baird Shearer 17:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Many people kept on editing the article and though they did not express their opinion explicitely, they didn't support your proposal. Still England etc. doesn't comply to the definition in country. Electionworld Talk? 20:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is merely one way of looking at the situation here. The list remains highly volatile and is subject to constant edits, because few can agree on just what a country is. Even a lengthy introduction has failed to stem this exercise. England complies with the definition of the word Country, simply because it is officially designated as one.--Huaiwei 17:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The persons who suppor the deletion of this list and its redirecting to list of sovereign states must not seem to realize that what they are requesting is that a featured list, (which passed the criteria and obviously had the support of the persons voting for its featured status) be deleted and its page redirected to a list that has never been a featured list. In fact list of sovereign states is currently semi-protected (and has been for almost a week). I for one support the list of countries and think such proposals should only be followed if featured articles can be deleted and redirected to "Good", "A", "B", "Start" or "Stub" class articles.

Please read the archive, they do --Philip Baird Shearer 09:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As for arguments for and against England and Scotland being included, I would like to know how the proponents of their inclusion would define Wales and more importantly Northern Ireland. Because obviously one cannot include the United Kingdom as well as England and Scotland in any list of countries. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are alternatively termed as "constituent countries" or "home nations", however as the constituent country article notes, the term "constituent country" is not a term of art and has no defined legal meaning; "constituent" is simply an adjective, and the phrase (constituent country) has no clear meaning outside a context from which the entity or grouping of which the countries in question are constituents or components can be understood. So right away we see it has no legal basis and has no clear meaning outside of particular contexts. But more important is the use of the terms. In Northern Ireland, the term province is used in preference by the unionists and the nationalists consider the area to be part of the country of Ireland under British control. There is also the fact that "England Wales" is a legal entity, which makes it even more difficult since Wales has a legal basis as well (through its assembly), but England by itself does not. So taken on a legal basis Scotland and Wales could be termed countries but if they were then the UK couldn't and neither could England or "England and Wales" and based on the varying views of Northern Ireland it too would be an odd placement alongside Scotland. This would then lead to the odd situation of calling certain places countries which have legal basis, in treaty or self-government or having to leave them off the list, which would mean that a large populated place is left off of the list. People will argue that "oh wait, but Nagorno-Karabakh has no legal basis either" which will show that they are confusing international recognition with laws and self-government. Unrecognized countries, although unrecognized, still have laws and thus have de facto legal basis. I would dare anyone to go Nagorno-Karabakh and break one its laws and see if they can argue their way out of prison based on the Nagorno-Karabakh not having legal basis. If international recognition were the requirement for the validity of laws then laws of countries such as Israel, the Republic of China (Taiwan), the People's Republic of China, the Vatican City and Cyprus shouldn't be considered as having any real legal basis since those countries aren't recognized by every single other UN member in the world. What would be the difference between Israel not being recognized by over 20 states and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus being recognized by only 1 state? What is the criteria for a country being "recognized" or "unrecognized"? But none of this matters much anyway, because what people are forgetting is that the term "country" can also be used loosely as a subdivision. Take for example "Basque Country". This is a part of the country, nation and state of Spain, but nobody seriously considers adding it to the list of countries. If anything it has an even greater claim to being on the list than the constituent countries of the UK (which can be viewed in the same light as Basque country). If people want to start adding the constituent countries of countries themselves, we may as well starting add any tract of land with a name or maybe tracts of land without names, since any one of us can go off to the un-named "country" or "countryside" for the weekend.72.27.57.162 18:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The points you raise are why this should not be a self defining list. Just because England and Scotland are countries does not mean that the UK is not a country (two different meanings of the same word). Just because Scotland is in the list does not mean that the province of Ulster needs to be in the list, but there are arguments for including Ireland and not the state of the Republic of Ireland.

Also what about Black Country or "Shakespeare Country" or "Bronte Country" or the dozens of other places with brown signs pointing to them?

It is because of all the meanings of the word country that this list should made into either a redirect or into a disambiguation list --Philip Baird Shearer 09:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So then if this list is not to be defined in any manner...then I suppose it should be an open ended list? And likewise so should list of sovereign states becom list of states and include New South Wales and New York? As you said, just because England and Scotland are countries (in one sense of the word), doesn't mean the UK isn't a country. However, it does mean that when using one broad definition of "country", other senses of the word (and their examples), are quite naturally excluded. If this is to be a list of countries and not a list of some countries in the world or just a list of countries within the united kingdom then the exclusion of ulster would mean that the list isn't as comprehensive as it could be. As the list stands now, no area on earth that is permanently inhabitated is excluded. Listing Scotland, which would mean that Ulster couldn't be listed, would leave the question open as to which country ulster (with is 1 million+ people) belongs to and of course the answer is two: The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Arguments for including Ireland as opposed to the Republic of Ireland use the term nation and country interchangeably. There is an island of Ireland, throughout which the Irish nation lives. But the island of Ireland is divided between two separate countries and states. Just because Ireland is an island and also a nation doesn't make the entire island a country. Otherwise one would then be hardpressed to explain the difference between Ireland and New Guinea. New Guinea is an island divided between two countries (Indonesia and Papua New Guinea), but the native Papuans and Austronesians are found right across the island and the name Papua itself has long been associated with the island and used by both sides of the island. Other examples very similar to Ireland would include Samoa (divided between Samoa and American Samoa). There is a Samoan nation which inhabits the Samoan archipelago. But the Samoan archipelago is divided between two countries: The Independent State of Samoa (formerly Western Samoa) and American Samoa (which is an unincorporated territory/dependent territory belonging to the United States). And if Ireland (both Northern and the Republic) are included as one country, then why should the list have China and Taiwan as separate countries? or North and South Korea? In both those cases, each government claims the territory of the opposing government, unlike the Republic of Ireland which no longer claims Northern Ireland in its constitution and recognizes it as British (that doesn't mean the Republic won't work towards reunification - but that it simply recognizes the situation as it exists now). And to move even further, why include Germany and Austria as separate countries? Before German unification, the term "Germany" would have been used in the more loosely defined way as the "area inhabited by Germans" and it was only considered a "country" in this sense. At that time, it the term would have (at times) included Austria's German-speaking areas. As both German and Austria are both part of the German nation, why bother to have them listed as separate countries? Of course, today although Germans and Austrians share a common language and so forth, Austrians themselves have also developed a sense of nationhood and so form a separate nation from that of Germany. In a similar manner, Australia and the United Kingdom once shared the same nationality (British) but Australia gradually developed its own sense of nationhood and nationality. Even so the word "nation" isn't a hard and fast term (rather like "society").

You use the example of the Black Country to support the deletion of this list and turning it into a redirect or a disambiguation page. I don't know which redirect you would make it into, since the list of sovereign states is obviously a shorter list and would only continue the confusion between the terms "state", "country" and "nation" (and we shouldn't be encouraging that). I also don't see how this could become a disambiguation list, since such a list is basically a list of lists. For example any such page would have to include links to the list of unrecognized countries, but also a link to a list of generally recognized countries as well as list of dependent territories (considered to be countries as well) and list of "other" countries (countries which fall under the other senses of the word). Now under which list would the Black Country fall? "List of loosely defined areas called countries"? And even if a disambiguation list were required it would still have to link to a list pretty much like this one (otherwise what would be the point of a "list of a list of countries"? If anything the Black Country is a strong example of why there should be a country (disambiguation) page (which already exists). If that disambiguation page is inadequate because it lacks links to the various senses of the word country and to examples themselves, then it is the country (disambiguation) page which needs to be expanded upon, not this page. And why shouldn't this list have some defintion? Is there a wikipedia policy or guideline against definitions? Even list of sovereign states and list of unrecognized countries have definitions. A disambuiguation list would not remove the need for such definitions in those pages and the very reason for that is due to the way the terms are used. The fact that the titles of the pages are list of countries, list of sovereign states and lists of unrecognized countries reflects the most popular usage of these terms (even inhabitats of the Black Country would probably not expect to see it in a list of countries) since the primary sense of each of those words is used in the lists themselves. unlike terms such as cricket, pound and so forth which can be easily defined as cricket(sport) vs. cricket(insect) or pound(currency) vs. pound(mass), the term country cannot be so easily defined in article titles. For instance, in one word give the meaning of the sense in which "country" is used for the Black Country. Confusion over meaning in lists of elements by name doesn't lead a disambiguation page although technically by its title one could well expect classical elements and Chinese elements (such as air, water, wood and metal). The reason of course is that the main sense of the word element is chemical and to be sure the reader understands this there is a definition about the list in the list of elements by name page. Articles without introductions (even self-defining ones) are poorly written articles and shouldn't be emulated.72.27.57.162 23:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And likewise so should list of sovereign states become list of states and include New South Wales and New York? is a list of "sovereign states" not states. The issue of American states sovereignty was settled in the American Civil War, I am sure that an Australian would be able to explain if New South Wales is sovereign under the Australian constitution but I doubt it and it is not recognised as such by any sovereign state.

There are many meanings of country (this was talked about at the start of this thread: See The OED has 16 meanings for country), so I am not going to quibble with you over most of the points you raise, because they are arguments for turning this list either into a redirect that gained most support or as disambiguation page as Huaiwei suggested (and which I am happy with), and there already exists a lists of countries and Lists by country to cover some of your other points -- but I can not resist one, Munster, Leinster, Ulster and Connacht are the provinces of Ireland. Northern Ireland consists of only six of the nine counties of Ulster, so Northern Ireland is not a country it is part of a province. This is one thing that even Ian Paisley ("Ulster says no") would agree with.--Philip Baird Shearer 10:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The list is called list of sovereign states, but according to some views and in some legal theory sovereignty is shared between the United States as a whole and the individual states themselves. So at the very least, all 50 American states could have some claim to be included in that list...unless of course the list has clear definitions in the introduction about the sense in which the term "state" (and more specifically "sovereign state") is being used - which it does. The point was that people can virtually argue for the inclusion of most anything in any list or article where terms used in the titles have several meanings which cannot be summarized with the addition of a simple word in brackets. And it wasn't the issue of state sovereignty that was settled in the American Civil War, it was their ability to secede (and even then some people still think the states have such a right). Also, luckily, we are in 2007 and not 1987, because then it could very easily be argued that each Soviet republic belonged in the list of sovereign states since some (such as the Belorussian SSR and Ukrainian SSR) were actually signatories to the UN Treaty and since each republic was described as being both sovereign and always having the right to secede. What would have happened then? Nobody ever thought of the individual Soviet republics in the same sense as the USSR itself or other states around the world such as Italy at the same time. Likewise, why would one think of England and Scotland in the same sense as the United Kingdom and at the same time? And what does recognition have to do with sovereignty? Isn't it rather ironic that one state would need the approval of other states to be sovereign? It wouldn't really be sovereign would it? And if recognition is required then Cyprus, Israel, the People's Republic of China and the Vatican City would have to be removed from the list since they are not recognized by all UN members. Cyprus isn't recognized by 1 UN member (Turkey), Israel isn't recognized by 34 UN members and the People's Republic of China isn't recognized by 23 UN members and by the Vatican and The Vatican itself is only recognized by 176 countries which leaves 16 countries (assuming the countries referred to are all UN members) that do not recognize it. So according to the government of Pakistan, for example, there is no sovereign state of Israel, but if we go by that position alone then clearly wikipedia would become a sub-standard encyclopedia very quickly.

FYI The US states are not sovereign. See Supremacy Clause, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (art. 27), the ICJ LaGrand case (Case Concerning the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations) and the ICJ Press release for a summary. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI the Supremacy Clause (and all the other links you posted) have nothing to do with the shared sovereignty inherent the US federal system. It only deals with the sovereign powers delegated to the US federal government. It simply states the obvious: that the Constitution, laws made by the Federal government (that are constitutionally sound) and treaties signed and ratified by the Federal government (that also wouldn't conflict fundamentally with the constitution) shall be observed throughout all the states, regardless of their own laws. It doesn't say that the Federal government is supreme over every aspect of governance in the states or that powers not delegated to the US federal government by the Constitution are reserved specifically for the federal government. Nor does it say that if the Federal government makes a law or signs a treaty which violates the powers reserved for states or covers an area prohibited from the federal government by the constitution, that the law in question is supreme. US states have far more control over their own affairs than either Scotland or Wales and do exercise limited sovereignty. Note that it is limited. Limited by the Constitution and by Federal powers. But they do still exercise some sovereignty. And just so we are clear the definition of "sovereignty" is "the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself". If you look on only the Supremacy Clause then quite naturally one would assume that US states have no sovereignty whatsoever, but the Clause is only one part of the Constitution. And as should be made abundantly clear by the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people". This has the obvious implications that the US states (and/or American citizens) exercise the exclusive right of authority in areas of power not outlined in the US Constitution for the Federal government and not prohibited to the States. In any case, see US state, interstate compact and the introduction to Constitution of the United States, the Tenth Amendent and its history and State (country subdivision) (particular the first section on the US states). In no instance is the limited sovereignty of the various US states disputed (After all, did the US Constitution create a federal union of non-sovereign states?). of the various US states. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties you posted deals with areas of power that are expressly delegated by the Constitution to the US federal government (which means that they are redundant when arguing that US states don't have any form of sovereignty, since they only prove that the US federal government exercise sovereignty where it is permitted to by the US constitution - only the US government is allowed to sign international treaties and these treaties (once ratified) are binding on all authorities in the US, including the federal, state and local authorities). In the LaGrand case there was even further proof of this shared sovereignty as the US Supreme Court "lacked jurisdiction with respect to Germany's complaint against Arizona, due to the eleventh amendment of the U.S. constitution (which prohibits federal courts from hearing lawsuits of foreign states against a U.S. state)". If US states were not sovereign in any manner then the tenth and eleventh amendments would be meaningless and as the highest court of the land the US Supreme Court should have had jurisdiction over that case (and any case that could be appealed from a lower court). The fact that the US State Department, US goverment and US authorities/Arizona authorities violated the convention doesn't mean the convention made the supremacy clause more paramount than any other section of the constitution including the 10th and 11th amendments.72.27.57.162 20:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And how can most of the points I raise be arguments for turning this into a redirect or a disambiguation? You yourself said the OED has 16 meanings for the word country. And I'll ask you again, can any of those meanings be summarized in a single word that can be added in brackets? Seriously now. Otherwise how are you going to differentiate between any disambiguation and the other lists. And the points I raised were done in the expectation that if you or anyone else could answer them and raise points against them, then my points couldn't be used to oppose deletion - that has happened yet though. As for Ireland and Ulster, I was using Ulster because you referred to it first and obviously at the time in the sense of Northern Ireland as opposed to the whole of Ulster (see what terms with different meanings can do unless defined?). Munster, Leinster, Ulster and Connacht are provinces of Ireland, but if you read the Provinces of Ireland page you will realize that they have no legal status in Ireland today (and haven't for some time), but are simply used to refer to groups of counties. Thus they cannot be used as an argument for the whole of Ireland to be included as a country, since they are little better than terms for various regions on the island of Ireland. If using historical provinces is a basis for defining a country then we might as well include Taiwan and China as one country based on the administrative divisions they claim with regards to each other. The same would go for the two Koreas and I have yet to see any dissenting opinion for the inclusion of the two Koreas. Taken even further it could be an argument to include Belarus (White Russia or White Rus) and Ukraine (Little Russia) as part of the country of Russia. Or include the Russian far east as part of China by virtue of it being the northern section of Manchuria. And if there exists a lists of countries (which basically acts as the disambiguation page you were talking about) and various lists by country then what do you have against this page? You also may have noticed that many of the lists in the lists of countries page include the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and not England, Scotland and the island of Ireland. The lists of countries page also does not cover the Black Country, and nobody has yet demonstrated under what kind of list the Black Country is to be included (if it is even to be included in a list), since it isn't linked to by any of the lists in lists of countries (which itself, oddly enough, uses the term countries in the same context as this list).72.27.57.162 16:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It think we should close these discussions. There is not much support for the new layout, so I withdraw my proposal. There is also not much support for changing this featured list into something else (disambig or deletion) than it is now, so it should stay as it stands now. I think with the new template at the top, a kind of disbig has been realized. Maybe someone can start a list of entities referred to as countries, which would include every entity that fulfils any definition of country. Electionworld Talk? 13:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is astonishing to note that the increasing chorus of users supporting a complete revamp of this article to a disambig page, or outright deletion, is being ignored once again, despite convincing evidence compelled above which says otherwise. If this article continues to stay where it is and in its current state, the next most logical step is to reaccess its status as a featured list, for this site can hardly endorse an article who's final state has never been agreed upon.--Huaiwei 15:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Electionworld: there is little evidence of any sort of a consensus to support extreme changes like disambiguating this article, and deleting it would be a disservice to everyone. And far from disregarding those who disagree with the above: dissenters, if you will, can edit the article as much as anyone or compel for change on the talk page. Quizimodo 16:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As many people or more people who have expressed an opinion on the issue have suggested redirection or disambiguation, this is far more than have expressed support for rearranging the deckchairs on this sinking ship. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I withdrew the proposal to rearrange the deckchairs on this ship, since there was no overwhelming support. The proposal to change into a disambig lacked overwhelming support too. Electionworld Talk? 21:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW. I would mind that by way of compromize an annex in the article would be included listing countries according to other definitions. Electionworld Talk? 21:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice that it seems to be the same chorus, rather than an ever "increasing" and "overwhelming" chorus that supports redirecting the page or making it into a disambig. And by the way, which is it to be? Obviously a disambig and redirect cannot be the same thing so this supposed majority is actually artificial since it is constructed from persons wanting either a disambig or a redirect. If you all feel so strongly and feel that somehow your views are being trampled on then why not do as you suggest and ask for a review of the page's featured list status? And while you are at it why not have a vote on whether the page should remain or become a redirect or a disambiguation (with the latter two not being artificially lumped but counted separately). I also noticed that Philip Shearer (and none of the other's calling for redirect or disambig) has not adequately responded to any of the numerous questions I raised surrounded disambiguation or redirection. I have challenged the assumptions surrounding the ideas and the only significant response was to claim that the challenges supported redirection or disambiguation without explaining how. Electionworld's idea was a pretty good one from an aesthetic point of view, although its implementation isn't pressing, because all it would essentially do is reorganize the countries listed (and why reinvent the wheel?). I have seen a proposal for deleting a featured list (a Commonwealth of Nations list) in favour of a new wikitable sortable list. Now that proposal would have been vastly different in that it basically incorporated about 3 lists into one and allowed users to sort the list by various categories. Now if Electionworld were to come up with a sortable list of countries based on alphabetically order, sovereignty or lack thereof and international recognition or lack thereof, then I would definitely support such a list. That way one could sort the list so it appeared as it does now or in the format Electionworld had been proposing or in another format entirely. However, it might be a rather challenging list to make. I like Electionworld's idea of an annex in the article containing those areas considered countries under other definitions, at least he's taking shot at making the article better and addressing the concerns of all involved instead of claiming majority rule and clamouring for disambiguation (which is essentially putting the cart before the horse - which set of lists would it disambiguate to? At the very least such a disambig is going to have to lead to a list rather similar to this one already) or redirecting (which is asking for people to assume that country = state; which it doesn't - and that is especially bewildering since it was already pointed out that country has 16 definitions in the OED and I'm sure in the OED it doesn't say "see state" under the country entry). I'll be willing to help Electionworld with such an annex if he's interested. I would caution against including historical countries (e.g. Yugoslavia) as opposed to traditional or sub-state countries (e.g. Basque Country or Scotland), since historical countries will lead to a very long list (just imagine all the old countries that made up the German Confederation for instance).72.27.77.42 00:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This list would look like the section below.

See previous section for explanation

This list includes entities of which a substantial part of the population would refer it to as their country (or nation). (sentence can be improved)

•  Aceh
  • Part of Indonesia, referred to as country by pro-autonomy groups^[1], the official name Nanggröe Aceh Darussalam means Welfare and Peace Aceh Country^[2].
•  Basque Country
  • Part of Spain and France, referred to as historical nation in the Spanish constitution^[3].
•  Bougainville
  • Part of Papua New Guinea
•  Catalonia
  • Part of Spain and France, referred to as historical nation in the Spanish constitution^[4]
•  Chechnya
  • Part of Russia
•  Crimea
  • Part of Ukraine
•  East Turkestan, East Turkestan
  • Part of the People's Republic of China
•  England
  • Constituent country of the United Kingdom^[5]
•  Flanders
  • Part of Belgium, referred to as country (land) by Flemish nationalists^[6]
•  Galicia
  • Part of Spain^[7]
• Kashmir
  • Divided between India, Pakistan and the People's Republic of China
• Korea
  • Divided in South Korea and North Korea
•  Kosovo
  • Part of Serbia
•  Kurdistan
  • Divided between Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria
•  Northern Ireland
  • Constituent country of the United Kingdom^[8]
•  Quebec
  • part of Canada, referred to as nation by the Canadian parliament and as country (pays) by separatists^[9]
•  Republika Srpska
  • Part of Bosnia and Herzegovina
•  Scotland
  • Constituent country of the United Kingdom^[10]
•  Southern Sudan
  • Part of Sudan
•  Tamil Eelam
  • Part of Sri Lanka
•  Tatarstan
  • Part of Russia
•  Tibet
  • Part of the People's Republic of China
•  Wales
• Constituent country of the United Kingdom^[11]
•  West Papua
  • Part of Indonesia
•  Zanzibar
  • Part of Tanzania

I propose first to fill this list and than add it to the article. Electionworld Talk? 09:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to have subsections like these, you might as well have subsections for fully independent states recognised by the UN, de facto independent states with limited recognition, entities with special status according to the UN, or even dependent states with no formal recognition of independence. That just sounds like a disamg list in expanded style, but heck, perhaps that the only way forward if you want to isolate disputes to certain sections of the article instead of subjecting the entire list to constant disputes?--Huaiwei 09:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are Tatarstan and Chechnya singled out? While they probably have more autonomy than most of other Russia's republics their official status doesn't differ from that of Sakha or Chuvashia... See this list. Alæxis_¿question? 13:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Btw the same thing happened to Spain. Again Catalonia and Euskadi are the regions that have most autonomy, however they are officially called autonomous communities, just like Galicia, Valencia or Andalucia. Alæxis_¿question? 13:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe relevant entries should probably be added under the legitimate country: e.g., England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland double indented under the United Kingdom. Mind you, I'm also fine with maintaining the status quo.

So am I... Alæxis_¿question? 15:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

One comment regarding the Canadian province of Quebec, though: it or its people (Québécois), in whole or in part, are sometimes referred to as a nation (notably in a motion passed by the federal parliament last year), but it is generally not referred to as either a country or a state. Therefore, it (and perhaps other entities) should be excluded. Quizimodo 15:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Huaiwei that such a section might be the "only way forward if you want to isolate disputes to certain sections of the article instead of subjecting the entire list to constant disputes". I don't think other subsections are necessary since the whole point of the formatting is to separately show generally recognized and independent states, unrecognized countries and dependencies. Of course, if the list were a sortable table now, then it could be sorted either alphabetically, regionally or by the categories of independence and recognition. I think the list is a good start and with a more proper opening sentence it should be able to inform readers that the entities listed are also considered countries but not in the same sense as in the main list i.e. these are areas which are not artificial structures (like Sealand), that do not claim to be totally separate entities (like the unrecognized countries do) and nor are they recognized as being separate from the controlling state/country (as the various dependencies are - both by the controlling states such as the USA and UK and by the rest of the world in general). After all the governments controlling the territories of the Basque Country or Scotland do not claim independence (unlike Northern Cyprus) and they do recognize their areas to be a part of a country (Spain and the United Kingdom respectively) (unlike the Cayman Islands which doesn't consider itself to be a part of the UK). It would also have to be noted that the term "country" isn't always used regularly to refer to some of the entities, for instance the constituent countries of the UK are also called the Home Nations. Not sure about Quebec's inclusion. It is considered a separate nation and a number of people in the province would like it to become a separate country....but I've never heard of it being referred to as a country.72.27.77.42 16:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion here makes it for me clear that it is not possible to make a good annex. Therefore, I do not longer think it is a good idea to add this annex. Electionworld Talk? 20:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? Nobody so far has disagreed with the annex, only with the inclusion of a couple entities. Alaexis wondered about Tatarstan, Chechnya and Catalonia, but in reply to his queries: Tatarstan and Chechnya did declare themselves to be separate from the Russia during the dissolution of the USSR and while Tatarstan worked out an agreement with Russia (such that it remains a part of Russia but with substantial autonomy - more than Sakha I believe), Chechnya didn't. It did agree to being a part of Russia until a referendum could be held (it never was) and so, as Electionworld said in the opening sentence, parts of the population consider Chechnya a country (although the majority right now, probably just don't care who's in control as long as they can live their lives peaceably). Catalonia was compared to Valencia, but Valencia is also referred to as Valencian country sometimes rather like the Basque country, even though it's official name is the Valencian community. The annex seems like a good idea, it should probably just be limited to areas that are or have been called a "country" at some point, such as the constituent countries, Basque country, Valencia, Tamil Eelam (which is considered a country by the Tamil Tigers who do control some territory), Flanders, and so on and leave out areas like Quebec. I think the point is to include entities which are called countries but do not necessarily fit in with the countries in the main list since they are actually parts of the countries in the list.72.27.77.42 02:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you've missed my point regarding Spain. All the parts of Spain are called autonomous communities. They all have varying degree of autonomy and for us to draw a line somewhere would be WP:OR and illogical. I'm also not sure that the word country is applied often to Valencian Community or Catalonia.

Do you have statistics regarding the number of people considering their republic a country for Tatarstan, Chechnya and all other Russian republics? While Tatarstan (maybe) and Chechnya were sometimes called countries at some periods in 90s what does it have to do with current situation? Alæxis_¿question? 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now about Spain. I don't think the word "country" has been applied to Catalonia, but Valencia has definitely been called country at times. Your also right regarding Tatarstan and Chechnya, though I thought their inclusion in such an annex, like that of England, Scotland and Kosovo would be a good comprise over the seemingly endless recurring issues of their inclusion in the main list. Perhaps if it is to be done at all, it should be simply limited to those areas that are specifically labelled as countries (especially in some documents that can be used for verification) such as England, Scotland, Basque Country and Valencia. And maybe Tamil Eelam, though if that is too iffy then it would just be left out.72.27.77.42 16:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember any discussions over the inclusion of Chechnya or Tatarstan lately so I think that some kind of consensus has already been reached about it. Alæxis_¿question? 17:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Even better. But the issue of England and Scotland do keep arising in some form or another (either as a direct question or as a some demonstration that the list should be deleted).72.27.77.42 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose that only entities should be listed with a ref for the source where the entity is referred to as country or nation or when it is self evident (e.g. Korea). Electionworld Talk? 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So does this mean you would still be willing to do the second annex? Don't think we should include entities referenced as nations but never referenced as countries though. Some would take this to the extreme and claim that all of Ireland or all of China should be included in the main list instead of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom or the PRC and ROC.72.27.77.42 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I grow increasingly wary of the utility and authority of the proposed annex/list: if it is to list countries, we should not be entertaining the listing of nations or like entities. Each of these terms -- country, nation, state -- may be interchangeable in general parlance, but an encyclopedia must be clearer and more authoritative. Any entries in such a list must be well sourced: for example, the subunits (constituent countries) of the UK.[3] [4] Otherwise, such a list would cater to 'nationalist' editors from Sealand to Tipperary, or others with an agenda. Arguably, It may constitute original research anyway.

And, to iterate: Quebec -- a province of Canada -- should not be included. The Canadian (federal) parliament passed a motion that Québécois form a nation, not Quebec itself. And, of course, separatists believe Quebec is or should be a country: otherwise, they wouldn't be separatists. (Of course, this position is more nuanced than that). Quizimodo 04:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is Sealand being removed? Themusicgod1 06:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Micronations need not apply See here and here. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

agree. Electionworld Talk? 07:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was the complete template removed? Electionworld Talk? 07:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Complete? It was dated several months ago, and it implies some kind of continuum that can be complete (e.g. List of all U.S. presidents until today or List of all ABA basketball players), whereas a list of countries is not complete per se anymore than any other list of anything. I personally think it's silly, especially since having a date from May in August actually implies that the list is outdated, which is counter-intuitive at best and deceptive at worst. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 07:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK Electionworld Talk? 11:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam is a de facto state (like Somaliland or South Ossetia). The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) currently administers some of the land claimed for Tamil Eelam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.42.227 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are any sources calling these territories 'de facto independent', 'de facto state', 'unrecognised country' or something like that please bring them and then Tamil Eelam will also be included. Alæxis_¿question? 16:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2003041204820100.htm&date=2003/04/12/&prd=th&

http://www.hindu.com/2006/04/21/stories/2006042101621000.htm

http://www.tamilnation.org/tamileelam/defacto/index.htm

http://69.94.47.118/page.php?cat=122&id=689

http://www.eelam.com/tamil_eelam.html

These are hardly neutral sources - they all seem to be pro-Tamil. I'm sure pro-Sri Lankan sources say exactly the opposite, so we shouldn't use any of them here. You may want to look at the references proving the de facto independence of Abkhazia and Transnistria. Alæxis_¿question? 19:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they are surely the most well organized rebel army in the world. In north Sri Lanka they have their own gouvernment, laws, courthouses, taxes, and their police and army are the only present in the area. There is even a clear border with the rest of the country with custom officers in every check point.

1 political entity recognized by all UN members, but not by Joe McElhiney, (East Timor)

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sad mouse (talk • contribs) 18:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just vandalism that managed to get in. KTC 22:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm certain these points have been made previously, but it seems that at least one of the "unrecognised states" fails the set criteria of the Montevideo Convention. While the case could be made that the Sahrawi Republic has minimal sovereignty on some territory, the State of Palestine doesn't have any sovereignty, nor did it ever have any (having been declared in 1988 in Algeria according to its entry). Thus it certainly doesn't have any population nor any defined territory. Whether some government ever existed or whether it can enter into diplomatic relations is slightly more complicated, but any such institutions or relations have already been superseded by the Palestinian National Authority. Regardless, that it fails the first two points seems clear to me - am I missing something? Tewfik^Talk 16:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You might be right, I am not sure, but since it is a widespread recognized entity, it belongs in the list. I created a separate category. Electionworld Talk? 17:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The widespread recognition was of a declaration, not of any sovereignty, borders etc. The entity is a UN observer, and so I added it in that section of annex to the list of countries‎, but I'm not sure that that alone would qualify it to be included here. Is there a definition other than Montevideo which would include it? Tewfik^Talk 19:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted to Tewfik's version, to remove the proposed State of Palestine from this list. I agree with Tewfik's point about the Montevideo Convention, but I don't think moving this item out of the Montevideo Convention category resolves the problem. The article is defining a state based on the "precedent of the Montevideo convention", which is original research in and of itself, but let's leave that aside for the moment. The Montevideo Convention says that statehood is independent of recognition by other states. Therefore, if we say that these eight entities are "states" under the Montevideo Convention, but this other entity is a state based on recognition, then the list would be based on self-contradictory rationales. Unfortunately, what this really means is that the whole list is original research. How this ever became a featured list, I do not know. But let's deal with one problem at a time. If we are following a particular definition of state in this article, then we should stick with the definition, and the State of Palestine is out. A number of other entities probably should be removed as well. 6SJ7 21:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How is having this list OR?? You define a criteria for inclusion (which is what is disputed here), and then you add item that fit those criteria and cite source that justify those inclusion. We have different list for the different inclusion criteria, and this one is what it is. This list was made FL when it was submitted because it's "useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed". KTC 13:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal. Please note the Montevideo Convention bit is one section of the general list inclusion criteria, not the only criteria. Right at the top we have "listing countries in the sense of independent states (both those that are internationally recognized and generally unrecognized), inhabited dependent territories, and areas of special sovereignty". Palestine should be included because it is widely recognized. It have diplomatic dealings with many, including UN itself [5]. It's hard for anyone to say it doesn't have territorial sovereignty, when major countries and international body deal with it in the sense that it does, including having sanctions against it. KTC 13:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think if you read the State of Palestine entry, as well as the Palestine entry, you will see that no one, especially not the Palestinians, claims that there is an independent or sovereign Palestinian State, recognised or otherwise (including in the article you cited). Sanctions and such are applied to the Palestinian National Authority. The only actual function of the "State of Palestine" is to be an observer at the UN, but that representation was de factopart of the Palestine Liberation Organisation until the creation of the successor PNA, and has since functioned as its representation, with the exclusion of the recent Gaza Strip government. Perhaps it would be best if you just take a look at the Definitions of Palestine and Palestinians - this topic is unfortunately both a complex and controversial one, but I do hope that you'll take the time to review the relevant entries. Tewfik^Talk 10:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In the current format, the list shows UN short name - long name (status)? This should be explicited. "Burma", "Ivory Coast" are former names? Then what represent the names Timor-Leste, Pridnestrovie, Western Sahara? neither the formal nor the informal names.--Connection 01:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just alternative names used in English Electionworld Talk? 18:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. Wouldn't they need a disgnation, I mean like column headers: Formal name, Short name, old designation, proclaimed, alternative (or common, popular) name?--Connection 10:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I got very confused with the present naming criteria of this list. Contrary to what Electionworld said, the short-form names on this list do not strictly follow the names of the country entries. Examples include "Democratic Republic of the Congo vs Congo", "Republic of the Congo vs Congo", "Republic of Ireland vs Ireland", "Macau vs Macao" and "Republic of China vs Taiwan". It seems the adoption of these short-form names is just based on the preference of Wikipedians but doesn't reflect the political/legal adopted names, esp those widely used by UN and the international community. It's obvious that the name "East Timor" has become historical following the creation of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste. The "new" name Timor-Leste is the official name of this state registered with UN. It has nothing to do with whether the term is English or not. The use of the "new" name by the general public is just a matter of time. As I said, the same standard as "Côte d'Ivoire vs Ivory Coast" and "Myanmar vs Burma" should be strictly and universally applied. Otherwise, there shall be no grounds to defend against claims like "Ghana vs Gold Coast", "Tuvalu vs Ellice Islands", "Iran vs Persia", "Vanuatu vs New Hebrides", etc. --DD Ting 03:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's hear for some more opinions. Electionworld Talk? 23:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the case of China and Taiwan are perfect examples of the naming convention not being followed. The common English name for China is "China" and the common English name for Taiwan is "Taiwan". And if you don't believe me, ask yourself if you were honestly confused about which countries I meant when I said "China" and "Taiwan". On the other hand, how many English speakers would immediately recognize the "Republic of China" as a small country where Beijing is not the capital?

As for East Timor, it may be that in the near future "Timor-Leste" will be the common English name. Has that near future arrived yet? Readin (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification is needed, particularly regarding the naming of Taiwan and China. Someone made a comment in one of their edits that a consensus had been reached, but I don't seen any sign of it here. What is the reasoning for treating those two countries so differently from all the other countries? Readin (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph says we "include both an English version of the short official or normative names". In the case of Taiwan, the government has been using the name "Taiwan" for purposes such as printing on passports and application to join the UN. The normative name even according to the ROC government is Taiwan and although the official name may still be "China", it is no longer used. In this case, due to widespread usage including official government usage, and to avoid confusion with a the PRC which is referred to both commonly and officially as "China", the normative name "Taiwan" is preferred for a list of countries (but perhaps not for a list of states).Readin (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about source of long names. In the general info comment it is said: "The new list is formatted in a table and includes now the native official names." Does that mean that the long name (not common name) is the formal name that a country calls itself, (usually) translated into English? Not getting into the national state versus country definition debate, I'm looking for a valid list of long names, so I expect that some form of governmental entity defines this full official name. What sources do you use to validate? I realize that we should not use wikipedia for primary sources, however this is a highly vetted and highly rated (and I think really great) page and, if I could back it up with primary sources, i.e., the countries' own government websites or other defined sources, then this is a defensible source for the context I am trying to use it for. Ktkeller (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no key? Nowhere in the article is it explained bluntly why some countries are in bold and/or italics on the list. Please clarify Thedreamdied 19:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Many people have argued for the inclusion of the European Union in various ranked lists of countries (e.g. List of countries by population) because it has country-like characteristics. Why then is the EU not included in this list if it is so country-like? Except for the EU, all of the entries in any of the ranked country lists can also be found in List of countries. Wikipedia should be consistent in this. Either include the EU in "List of countries" or remove it from all lists that are just rankings of the entries here. Which would be the more optimal solution? --Polaron | Talk 00:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The fine but important difference is, that this one here is a list of classical recognized countries and territories. The country rankings include data and list already not sovereign countries, states, territories. Also, the EU entry is in no list fully integrated, it always remains unranked. This is the most convincing solution for the current political/ economical status of the EU. The EU can not be declared a sovereign country and should´nt be ranked therefore. On the other side it has developed a too significant degree of country-like characteristics to be not included (Country lists including data). Lear 21 (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

None of the entries in those other lists are not also on those lists (except for the EU). Note that this list includes self-governing dependent territories and areas of special sovereignty. Your argument does not hold. --Polaron | Talk 03:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Several arguments have been stated. Lear 21 (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why not simply include it here? --Polaron | Talk 04:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In this list you only have the option IN or OUT. PLUS or MINUS. You can´t add an 'unranked' but still included entry like in the other lists. And in this case the EU is not a country. Lear 21 (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain why something that is not in List of countries should be included in a ranked list of countries. This list has a very inclusive definition of "country". Is the EU a country or not? Then its inclusion in an ordere list of countries will follow the answer to that question. Its inclusion in ranked lists of countries is being justified by it being so country-like. So why not simply include it here and end the debate? --Polaron | Talk 13:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Rereading the decision here: CIA World Fact Book: Preliminary statement on EU entry you rather convinced me to include the entry here as well. Go for it. Lear 21 (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Even more significant: The EU´s supranationality can be based upon the independence of the EC (e.g. independence - Art 7 TEC, majority decisions - Art 251 TEC) and the common binding legal framework (e.g. immediate validity - ECR 26/62 Van Gend & Loos, primacy of community law - ECR C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich). Lear 21 (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know where it is stated that lists of countries cannot make note of entities that are not appearing in the list of countries article. It would indeed be inconsistent to include something in a list of countries that is not listed here but merely noting it in someway outside of the list is perfectly consistent.Zebulin (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to the main point. This is from Annex to the list of countries

"==Entities not included==

• Confederations and international / intergovernmental organizations which are associations of countries."

Zebulin (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Argument on EC as independent and sovereign remains. @Zebulin:where is your position? You seem to keep reverting without answering the significant arguments. On "==Entities not included==" : this can be altered. Lear 21 (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The EU should be included. The EC already has sovereignty as a legal entity, and this will be extended to the entire Union in 2009 when the Reform Treaty is pushed through. Further, the weight and reach of the Union means that its power is far in excess of the vast majority of the world's states. Imperium Europeum (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say either we include the EU (the only supranational organisation currently existing), or we amend the Annex to state "Confederations, supranational unions and international / intergovernmental organizations" instead. —Nightstallion 13:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer is simple, it is not a country so it is not included. This is a list of COUNTRIES, so let's keep it that way. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The day it becomes a country and is recognized by the international community (It will never happen) then you can add it to the list, but until then leave the list alone. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Beep, wrong -- we've got other states on the list which are not recognised by anyone as independent. —Nightstallion 09:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but at least they identify themselves as countries, the EU does not. It is not a country, plain and simple. This is a LIST OF COUNTRIES, not "Supernational organiztions with nation like characteristics". I don't care if it is "Almost a country", "similar to a country", or has "characteristics of a country", it is not a country. The day it calls itself a country is the day you can put it on here, but until then it does not belong on this list. I understand it being on other lists for "comparative purposes", but there is no need for that here. And even if you people reach a "consensus" and add the EU to the list regardless of the fact that it is inaccurate, it still will not change the fact that the EU is not a country. And if the scenario I discribed above happens I will report all of you to an admin for adding false information to an article. I know what you pro-EU editors do to get what you want, you all gang up on other users and reach poor "consensuses" and write "See talk" whenever a person tries to add accurate information. Well that is NOT going to happen on this article because the EU is not a country, doesn't discribe itself as a country, nor is it recognized as a country by any country/organization. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Also the EU is on the articles International organization and Supranational union, which would contradict it being a country. Please tell me, how on earth can you be an INTERNATIONAL organization and a SUPERNATIONAL union and be a country all at the same time? Well the answer is simple, you can't. The EU doesn't deserve so much as a mention on this page since it is not a country, and this pagee is list of countries. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Because of the hybrid structure the EU is a supranational state/country and can be therefore included here. The argument on the EC (part of EU) as independent and sovereign remains. Half of the entries here have not developed the level of policies or institutions like the EU. A 'country'/state combines many hundreds aspects to be called as one. The EU fulfills the requirements. Lear 21 (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't, nor does it call itself a country either. The EU is not a country, so get it off the list. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also if you look at the external link provided at the bottom it even says very clearly that the EU is not a country [6]. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that on the European Union article it doesn't say the EU is a country either. I can and will pull up dozens of scources saying that the EU is not a country. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of Daniel's comments left me wondering: entities like Hong Kong don't exactly call themselves a country either, yet exists in this list because of "almost a country", "similar to a country" or "characteristics of a country" factors. I am sure there are a few others which exhibits similar characteristics. Just where do we draw a line? And are we the authority to draw this line in the first place?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong and the EU One potentially germane distinction is that the EU is composed of countries and neither Hong Kong nor the PRC are - they are entities of their own, even though the latter includes the former as a constituent part. I suppose that entities composed entirely of states (or countries) would be excluded from a list of counties (e.g. the African Union, World Trade Organisation, NATO, etc.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 08:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

By that definition, the United States (with its 50 states) and the United Kingdom (with its 4 countries) should be removed from this list, along with a few others.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? I've never heard of Alabama referred to as a country. The names "state" and "(home) country" are clearly idiosyncratic to the US and UK; Alaska is not a state, nor is England a "country" independent of the UK (it doesn't even have a government.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 09:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, why not? Check up a dictionary on the meaning of the word "country" and you might be surprised. "States" are not that peculiar to the United States. Check out the states of Malaysia, Tanzania, etc. If England is not independent of the UK, is the UK independent of the EU? And if the lack of government in England is an issue, how about those who do have one? What about the governments of Hong Kong and Macau, for instance?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. states were indeed considered independent and part of a federation at the time of the founding, but the Civil War pretty much ended that idea. When a state is no longer free to leave a group it has joined, that state no longer has sovereignty. I'm pretty sure EU members can quit the EU without EU approval. U.S. states cannot quit the USA without US approval.Readin (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this correct? Great Britain already includes Scotland and Wales and according to the UK article, the title is simply "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" Savager (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been reverted. KTC (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So Aruba and Netherlands Antilles (constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands), and Faroe Islands and Greenland (constituent countries of the Kingdom of Denmark) are included, but England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (constituent countries of the United Kingdom) are not included. Anyone wish to argue for the consistency of this approach? Kevin McE (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really, since the "consituent countries" that you mention for the Kingdoms of the Netherlands and Denmark are autonomous areas within the Kingdoms. England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are not autonomous. Also the former countries are overseas, compared the Kingdoms, while the latter ones are at the center of the kingdom. --Paploo (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So what of the devolved autonomy of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which are self governing in many issues? I cannot see that geographical separtion can be the determining factor: this is about political status. Any definition of any of the four entities will use the word country: it seems obtuse to exclude countries from a list of countries. Kevin McE (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively in the past. Look there for some of the arguments. Alæxis_¿question? 10:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussed - yes. Concluded - no! Of course Kevin McE is absolutely correct. To have a 'List of Countries' from which certain 'countries' are omitted is simply nonsense. I am English, and my country is England. I am an Englishman. This is fact. For my country NOT to be on this 'List of Countries' is simply crazy. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

British particularism In the idiosyncratic language of the UK, yes, England is a "country," but it is clearly just a constituent part of the UK. I would not call Indiana my country, nor should England be considered a "country" in the way it is being used here. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You are comparing apples and oranges here. The American states are not in the same position as the constituent countries of the UK. It could be argued that the situation of Northern Ireland is similar, but not that of the three countries, England, Scotland, and Wales.Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 20:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay Insert "Tanzania" instead of "Indiana." I think you understand what I'm saying: regardless of the cultural heritage, they are constituent parts of a single state - one which was unitary until about a decade ago, as a matter of fact. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Errr, Tanzania is on the list. Kevin McE (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

How can you compare England to a state? England had one of the worlds largest empires, I dont think indiana ever did much for anyone. The fact that there are governments for each of these countries doesnt seem to have been taken on board by the writer of this list. United Kingdom is a collection of countries and not a nation unto itself. It has also come to my attention that the Falkland islands has been given an independant place on the list when it is infact a part of the UK, this is even attached in brackets after the country. therefore how can it be that England Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland do not get recognition in the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niall Freeman86.20.100.94 (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Falkland islands are an external dependency of the UK while England is an integral part of the UK. This is a list based on political status, and not on popular use of the word "country." You could include England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on this list, but you'd have to change the criteria of the list. Do you include Tibet, then? French Guyana? Quebec? Southern Sudan? Basque Country? What makes a subnational division a country and not just a province? It's too much. There needs to be some concrete dividing line between what's on the list and what's off it, and the current one we have is the only one I can see working. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We have talked this through before. See Talk:List of countries/Archive 1#Scotland and Talk:List of countries/Archive 1#Delete this list. The United Kingdom is a sovereign state. States belong to the EU and the UN not countries. States possess territory which may or may not be a country. Nations usually inhabit a country eg the English inhabit England. Scotland is a country and it is inhabited by Scots. Ireland is one country, but divide and is governed by two sovereign states. This page should become either a disambiguation page or a redirect to list of sovereign states. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Gaza and West Bank be included in this list? --Nadir D Steinmetz 16:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestine is included, as a special entity recognized by international treaty or agreement: the regions you mention are constituent parts of that entity. Kevin McE (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

But can I put like, for example, in the G section, "For Gaza see Palestine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idontknow610 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, Easter Island and the the Juan Fernandez Islands were recently classified as "special territories" of Chile. Should they be added to this list? Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I see somebody has now added these. The individual articles still describe both as being part of the Region of Valparaiso, as does the article for that region. So either the articles are out of date, or these islands should not be on the list. If no sourced info in two days, reversion would appear to be in order. Kevin McE (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If I understand this source from the Juan Fernandez page correctly [7], they've been designated as special territories, but they're still being governed as part of Valparaiso until they get their own local charters. Does that warrant inclusion on this list and Dependent territory and so forth? I'm honestly not sure. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm: "special" is very wide in potential meaning. I would suggest that it requires more than intervening seawater to make something an overseas territory: the thresh-hold is presumably a degree of self government much more far reaching than that of the mainland regions. The document you refer to seems to say (I have decent conversational Spanish, but am slightly out of my depth in technical legal language) seems to suggest that they will largely remain under the same legal framework as the rest of the country: los territorios especiales de Isla de Pascua y Archipiélago Juan Fernández continuarán rigiéndose por las normas comunes en materia de división político-administrativa y de gobierno y administración interior del Estado seems to me to approximate to The special territories of Easter Island and The Juan Fernández Archipelago will continue to be directed by the common norms in place in issues of political-administrative division and internal governance and administration of the state. That, and the fact that the website of the Ministry for the Interior still considers these part of Valparaíso, would lead me toward concluding that they should not be on this list, but I would be very happy to see a more authoritative translation and explanation. I'll put a note at WP:CHILE. Kevin McE (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC

if you speack to anyone who lives on Rapa Nui (Easter Island) none of them want to be assotiated with Chile, and still class themselves as a seperate country.. Scousermartin (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've merged Annex to the list of countries here, per discussion at Talk:Annex to the list of countries, and that page being totally subsidiary to this one.--Pharos (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why Somaliland is included, but Puntland and Maakhir are not.

Puntland's government has long considered itself an autonomous state, and Maakhir made a similar declaration in 2007.

Perhaps at least some mention of them is merited in the "Not included" list, with an explanation.

Ordinary Person (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

British Indian Ocean Territory is excluded on the grounds that it is a "dependent territory without indigenous inhabitation.

Okay. So why is Pitcairn Is included? It was uninhabited until settled in modern times.

What sense of "indigenous" is in use here?

Ordinary Person (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Every island on the planet was unpopulated until humans arrived on it, and the same can be said of every land mass other than the place of origin of the human species (let's not get into that debate). Pitcairn therefore only differs in timescale. BIOT has had no "indigenous" population since the removal of the Chagossians (as I understand it: if there are non-military service personnel there, and remaining through multiple generations, I am happy to retract) in that the transient population of a military base do not have their origins and family roots there, do not consider it their homeland, do not derive a common nationhood from that place. Kevin McE (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would it be better to say it has no permanent inhabitants?

Ordinary Person (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

it would be useful to convert this list into a table sortable by column, along the lines of

flag	ISO	name	official name	status	government	capital	continent	area (km²)	population (M)	HDI	GDP (G$)
		Abkhazia	Republic of Abkhazia	unrecognized, de-facto independent	republic	Sukhumi	Europe	8,432	0.18
	AFG	Afghanistan	Islamic Republic of Afghanistan	independent	republic, presidential	Kabul	Asia	647,500	31.89	0.229	8.8
	ALB	Albania	Republic of Albania	independent	republic, parliamentary	Tirana	Europe	28,748	3.60	0.801	21.2

In this way, several of the lists of countries (List of countries by population etc.) could conveniently be rolled into one. dab (𒁳) 15:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a good idea, I'm surprised that nobody commented it in nearly 4 months. There could however be display problems on small screens (or turned vertically as an A4 portrait). Maybe should some columns be abandoned or replaced by abbreviations, such as status, government and continent (not so many options in these). On the other hand, the ISO column could advantageously display the 1st level domain name too. Clpda (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

1 state, recognized by 42 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan)[2] and expecting further but ultimately limited recognition in coming days, the Republic of Kosovo.[3]

It has now been several months since the Republic of Kosovo was declared. Is the situation really likely to change in days, or is it months? And this should probably have an as of date, too. --196.210.152.31 (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a matter of personal preference As long as the main article is at Burma and not Myanmar, this should probably be listed as such. Also, it is listed as "Burma" at List of sovereign states. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is not a matter of personal preference, and I don't know whose edits that was aimed at. What it is a matter of is which source we take as appropriate. Wiki is not an authoritative source in and of itself, so we are left to decide whether this list adopts one external source (eg, names as registered with United Nations for use in English) that we use obediently and consistently, or the consensus (sometimes uncertain) as to what is most commonly recognised English language name. Criteria for article names are not necessarily the same as those for vocabulary in a list. I would have a preference for an externally verifiable version of the name (for all names in dispute, I have no particular axe to grind on the Myanmar/Burma issue), but no desire to get into an edit war over it, so long as both names are somewhere on the list. Kevin McE (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate sources I don't see how the United Nations is in any way relevant; your argument would be stronger at List of United Nations member states, for instance. I'm not personally invested in which name is used, but importing the rationale that was applied at Talk:Burma in the first place, it should be called "Burma" here as well. I do not know that either the standard of the United Nations nor of the most-common English name are to be a kind of trump card for what name is used here (e.g. if we used the former, Laos would be listed as the "Lao People's Democratic Republic" and if the latter, Côte d'Ivoire would be called "Ivory Coast.") Neither of them are in use presently, nor do I personally see a compelling reason to use either. There are several style manuals from several reputable news agencies, governments, and NGOs that use either name, so I simply say be consistent regardless of which one is chosen for the main article itself (as well as the main category, subcategories, templates, daughter articles, etc.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be agreed therefore that it is preferable to follow an external Reliable source. I would suggest that the UN is probably the nearest that there is to a neutral source, and it does include more informal versions of names. Which of the several style manuals would you prefer? Kevin McE (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! The Vatican City is included in the list, but later the "Holy See" appears in the "not included" list. I cannot fix it because I've no enough edits. Please fix it. --Againme (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Holy See and Vatican City are different entities. The latter administers some territory while the former doesn't and is thus excluded from the list. Alæxis_¿question? 20:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your answer. But the list also says that the Holy See governs the Vatican City... therefore administering its territory... It appears like one of the two is wrong... --Againme (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're right... I'm certainly not a specialist in this area. Let's wait for more replies. Alæxis_¿question? 07:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As no one else has commented on the subject, I went ahead with my proposed change. Check it out, I hope you will find it to be satisfactory. Regards. --Againme (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite hypocritical. This is not the CIA factbook. --Apotetios (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The majority of countries don't recognise Northern Cyprus either, and there it is in the list.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That's another sad point. --Apotetios (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The topic is "List of Countries", not "List of Countries Recognized by a Majority of Other Countries". If you want to argue that Kosovo is not a country, then do so. Whether or not other countries recognize it is more a question of diplomatic game playing than reality. For example despite Kosovo still being controlled and governed by the UN, more than 40 plus countries recognize it. Meanwhile Taiwan, in its 59th year of independent self-government and 13th year as democratic independent nation only has recognition from 23 other countries. Readin (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need to have a single alphabetical list consisting of all the countries included here? Why not put dependent territories and/or unrecognized countries in their own sections like they do on List of sovereign states? It'd probably be helpful for readers, it might cut down on people deleting Kosovo or Abkhazia, and it would mean that we could do away with the bold/italic key. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That would make the arguments about which countries to place where so much worse. The list is fine as it is.Readin (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

...it was removed from the top section explanation (as a de facto independent state not recognized by any countries) but left in the actual list of countries. Any reason why it was removed? Dafoeberezin3494 (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I see from the history of the Talk:list of sovereign states (in the archive box) that this list was created after the long debate over the move from list of nations to list of sovereign states.

If this is a list of countries why is England not listed as England is a nation and a country? Why is the UK listed which is a soverign state but not a country? It was for this reason that the original move was made from list of nations to list of soverign states. The concept of country has many meanings and is wide open to POV issues. I suggest that this list is deleted and the page is redirected to list of sovereign states. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This list defines its terms well. It is also a featured list, meaning it has been recognized as one of the best on Wikipedia. The United Kingdom is certainly a country by most definitions. England is a sub-national entity, like Ontario in Canada. It historically was independent, and is generally considered a "country" in colloquial use, but in fact it has less "countriness" than Scotland, since it doesn't even have its own regional parliament. But all these issues are dealt with by defining our terms. Lexicon (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So it is role our own definition? The OED has 16 meanings for country. The first 4 are:

1. A tract or expanse of land of undefined extent; a region, district.
2. A tract or district having more or less definite limits in relation to human occupation. e.g. owned by the same lord or proprietor, or inhabited by people of the same race, dialect, occupation, etc.; spec. preceded by a personal name: the region associated with a particular person or his works
3. The territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories, as England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the United Kingdom, etc.
4. The land of a person's birth, citizenship, residence, etc.; used alike in the wider sense of native land, and in the narrower one of the particular district to which a person belongs.

... 6 "The people of a district or state; the nation."
Not one of these excludes England being a country and none of them link country to state as tightly as you are doing. This is why I think that this list should be redirected to the "list of sovereign states" which is a much more precise definition. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We're not claiming that these and only these entities are countries. It's just a Wikipedia list made for easier navigation. Besides there was a lot of disputes about the list of sovereign states as well. Alæxis_¿question? 20:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that this list of countries is just for help. Gosh! why do you keep a non-Encyclopedic page in the Encyclopedic space? --Juiced lemon 22:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is a descriptive term (and not a name) then the description should fit the list content. Not only is it not a list of countries it has in it lots of items which are not countries at all. For example the United Kingdom is state that consist of several countries and others in the list are territories that not even the inhabitants would not call a country e.g. Gibraltar. If as you say this is not an exhaustive list of countries then it must be a slective list that without a external sources to justify the selection is a non WP:NPOV WP:OR list. Did you read the archives at "list of sovereign states" that were in existance before this page was created? That page was moved from list of nations because it is just as hard to define what is a nation as it is to define what is a country. At least with the name "list of sovereign states" it is possible to find external sources which define membership of the list. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Instead of deleting this list, I would propose turning it into a disambiguation page and provide links to List of sovereign states, Dependent territory, List of unrecognized countries, List of extinct states, List of territorial autonomies, and List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement. Why? Because the word country has multiple meanings, and can include or exclude non-sovereign states depending on locality (American users, for example, tend to assume country = sovereign state, as is the case for most English users around the world. The only exceptions seems to be British users thanks to their concept of a constituent country). To therefore lump non-sovereign states in this list can be seen as politically insensitive. Provide a short definition of the multiple meanings of the word country, provide the links to those specific definitions, and we will avoid being quoted as an authority for political sovereignty!--Huaiwei 15:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Huaiwei. But if there is no consesnus for this then as a first step I propose to delete from this list all those entities such as "inhabited dependent territories and areas of special sovereignty" unless a reliable souce can be found that asserts that the entity is a country. Further I propose to add to the list any entity that is described as a country in a reliable source. For example England is describe as a country in lots of reliable sources. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If you delete the "inhabited dependent territories and areas of special sovereignty" the list would become identical with the List of independent states with England, Scotland, Wales and NI added. There's even less logic in this than in the current version. Alæxis_¿question? 09:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That is the suggestion that Huaiwei is putting forward. If we are going to have "just a Wikipedia list made for easier navigation." (which is what you wrote above) then this list should not be much more than a disambiguation page, because the word country has so many loose meanings (as shown by the OED definitions) that to define country to mean entities which do not have reliable souces that state they are countries, and to exculude countres from the list that are called reliable sources is WP:OR. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Off course there are sources labeling England as a country, but it is part of another country, the U, and that is the reason not to include it. If we add England , we have to add Bavaria too, we have to add Catalonia too etc. The list has a clear definition which is only used for this article. Electionworld Talk? 15:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion that because England is part of a state it should not be included (England is part of a state, that like any state has internationally recognised territory not internationally recognised country), but to be in included in a list of countries all that is needed is a reliable source which states that England is a country and there are lots of reliable sources which make such an assertion. How can it be said that a list of countries should include Saint Helena but not England? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So should we include Bavaria and Carinthia too (These are Länder of Germany and Austria). Land is the German word for Country. It is is a list of entitities that comply to the definition used in and for this pageElectionworld Talk? 17:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Länder is usually translated (if at all -- like Swiss canton it tends not to be) as state not country.[8] But if there are reliable sources that assert that Baveria is a country then if this is a list of countries it can be included. --Philip Baird Shearer

Do you know about País Vasco in Spain? país means country in Spanish and the whole name is regularly translated as "Basque country" in English. So we'd have to include it along with England, Scotland and Wales, right? However it would be rather illogical since Spain has other territories with similar status (like Catalonia) that just aren't called países for historical or other reasons. Thus strictly following the rules here produces absurd results.

Instead we've got a definition used exclusively for this article that seems to me (and not only to me as this is a featured list) rather logical and is not in contradiction with the meaning of the word country in English ([9]). Alæxis_¿question? 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What "appears" logical to you may appear illogical to another. A Chinese national seeing Taiwan on this list may protest, irregardless of how you attempt to explain the multiple meanings of the word "country" to him. The exclusion of England may appear absurd to an Englishman, even if you tell him England is already covered under the UK in this list. The criteria for inclusion in this list is almost leaning towards WP:OR, unless we have evidence that there are plenty of sources out there which uses exactly the same entry list inclusion criteria. And finally, please do not assume a featured list gives it automatic credibility. I myself was involved in past disputes when users actually attempt to cite this article's FL status as a bargaining chip when making a political stand on another issue. This article was accepted with just four votes.--Huaiwei 07:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Huaiwei to turn this into a disambig list. I find it very difficult to not have a list of all these existing lists.  :Dc76 20:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is another problem imho. There should be a separate discussion on whether such list is needed (i. e. you could insert links to the other lists in the intro of this one instead) and how it should be named. Alæxis_¿question? 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the above solution is to address this current problem, and are certainly related.--Huaiwei 07:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, a list of sovereign states would be far more helpful than one that synthesises a number of definitions in this manner. Tewfik^Talk 04:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree too; this list is inherently original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is a general feel that a major revamp of this list into a disambig list is a fair option to consider, I would like to gather opinions on how we may go about formulating this list. Thanks!--Huaiwei 11:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the article Lists of countries (note the extra "s" at the end of "Lists") takes care of disambiguation. The simplest thing to do is make this a redirect to List of sovereign states, otherwise make in a {{disambiguation}} page with List of sovereign states and a new page similar to Flags of non-sovereign nations or Flags of unrecognized states --Philip Baird Shearer 20:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Have I understood you right that you propose to make List of countries a redirect to List of sovereign states? Alæxis_¿question? 20:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I tend to agree with those who propose deletion. The term lacks sufficient definition and could cause confusion (a reader might think that a place on this list is a sovereign nation). It has the same problems as a 'list of nations' which is open to all kinds of abuse. A list of sovereign states and a list of sub-national entities should be all we allow, with definitional/redirect pages for lists of country/nation as necessary. Perhaps someone should propose for deletion and see where we get to. DSuser 18:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the general consensus here is that this list should not remain in its present from. This leaves two options either

1. make it a redirect to List of sovereign states
2. make it a {{disambiguation}} to which I suggest two entries:

A List of countries usually refers to a List of sovereign states but see Lists of countries for other types of country lists.

{{disambiguation}}

Thoughts? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I rear only a few people want to delete this list, most want it to remain the same. THe issue relates to the word country, which some peole do not ageen on. I do not see that they want to delete Country code top-level domain or ISO 3166 which use the same definition of country as this list. Anyway delteing the list seems extreme - it seems to be a suggesting based on getting a suggested change agreed to. Based on that, Wikipedia would not exist for long.-- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe this is an entirely accurate assessment of the situation here. The term "country" does have its multitude of meanings, and it is natural for constant debates on this. To therefore have a list based on such an ambigious term will inevitably invite endless cases of desires for inclusion or exclusion, simply because people read this list differently, irrespective of what the lengthy parametres say (which itself is a case of WP:OR). Suggestions for complete deletion is relatively new, and hence is unlikely to gather a strong following at this juncture. The alternative proposal to turn it into a disambiguation page as I suggested sometime ago seems to be gaining momentum thou. I would think this avenue may be further explored, and is actually related to the proposal below to rename the article, which would have been unnecesary if this article is reformed as suggested.--Huaiwei 00:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I put a new country in the list, called Gaza Strip. This has been deleted by a user. If a country like Transdinistria is part of the list than the Gaza Strip should be part of the list as well. Instead of the Palestinian Territories there need to be two new countries: Gaza Strip with the Hamas flag and West Bank with the Palestinian flag. Otherwise, the list will be inconsitent.

My newspaper said today that the west has accepted the split of the Palestinian Territories. Both Hamas and Fatah will get aid and Fatah has to prove in the West Bank to do better than Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Essentially, this means there are two new countries. But, they are not internationally recognized, just like Taiwan and Transdinistria.--Daanschr 14:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My revert was made for 2 reasons only:

1. The template {{flag|Hamas}} doesn't exist so before using it you should create it, otherwise the line will look like ((flag|Hamas|name=Gaza Strip}} - Gaza Strip Government.
2. You didn't update the total count of the countries in the beginning of the article.

If you address these issues Gaza strip has much better chances of remaining here. However some sources calling it de facto country, de facto independent, state, country or something like these should eventually be brought also. Alæxis_¿question? 14:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Did Gaza Strip declare itself as a new independent state, a country or a separation from the rest of the Palestinian territories? I didn't notice that. Please give sources for that.Electionworld Talk? 14:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• exactly - let us see that decalred and coursed first. when that is declared, Gaza Streep, or whatever they would call themselves, it would be a new unrecognized country. Yes, in particular a country. It will be again removed from the list as soon as the Palestinian authority would regain it, or if anyone else steps in to take charge (Israel, UN, NATO, etc.).:Dc76 17:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan isn't an independent country as well, and it exists for more than 50 years.

As far as I can see, the Palestinian territories are in a state of civil war, whreby two governments want to become to sole government of Palestine. The government of Gaza Strip doesn't claim to form a separate entity. It is good comparable with Puntland and not with Somaliland. Both governments want one country. So there is no reason yet to put Gaza on the list. This might happen if this situation continues. Electionworld Talk? 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

China is also in a state of civil war. I think Gaza Strip resembles more Taiwan than Puntland, because Puntland is sympathetic to the central government in Mogadishu, while the Taiwanese and Hamas are openly in war with the more internationally recognized regime, ie. the People's Republic of China and Fatah.--Daanschr 21:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It might develop into the same direction, but it is to early to take this conclusion. The Government of the ROC was the legal government of China, but gradually the recognitions shifted towards the PRC. There is no Civil War going on now between the two China's and de facto both countries exists. Electionworld Talk? 07:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's wait for a while.--Daanschr 09:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Electionworld! The historical atlas project has come to a complete stand still. Perhaps i will try to reinburse the project when i have more time for taking up responsibility outside my daily commitments.--Daanschr 15:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Allthough, Puntland is not seen as a country on the list of countries. It should be noted though that Puntland is in favour of a national government in Somalia and supported the national government, Ethiopia and the USA in fighting the Islamic Court Union. What could be a point in favour of declaring Gaza Strip as an independent country is that has conquered a specific land area and setup a new government: Gaza Strip Government, with Haniye as prime minister.--Daanschr 15:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hoi Daanschr. Puntland heeft ook een eigen regering, maar wil deel uitmaken van één Somalië. Somaliland niet. Gaza wil dele uitmaken van één Palestina, maar onder Hamas bewind. Electionworld Talk? 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Shall we put down a time schedule for the moment when Gaza Strip is accepted as an unrecognized country. Say that Gaza Strip exists for half a year, or something. The Gaza Strip Government came into being on june 14th, so december 14th could be the moment when Gaza Strip is included, and West bank instead of the Palestinian Territories. Something that should be taken into notice is if the media and politics refer to Gaza Strip as a country. The opinion of the UN should be seen as a very important indicator.--Daanschr 08:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about List of countries. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4