Talk:List of countries

Archives Talk:List of countries/Archive for old and recent dicussions.

Proposal

This is my a proposal. I am not sure I listed Kosovo correctly. I coppied Tamil Eelam b/c it is in the list (the first blue link) in the definition of the group of 10. See also Talk:List of sovereign states.:Dc76 23:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam does not qualify by the criteria for this article. Lexicon (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC) :generally taken into account already, and tamil eelam was a mistake, so I am withdrawing it.:Dc76 20:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Here is my new proposal: [1]

For arguments, see also [2], [3], please.

• (Q1) Question: Parentheses or footnotes in the A-Z list? Possible answers:
  • 1) parentheses for the 38+4+1, footnotes for the 9
  • 2) only footnotes for everyone
  • 3) only parentheses for everyone
• (Q2) Question: Transnistria or Pridnestrovie? Possible answers:
  • 1) transnistria (argument: while both are local names according to Transnsitria/Pridnestrovie, not to Moldova (!), and hence are both equally local names, Pridnestorie is not used in English-originating-sources at all)
  • 2) pridenestrovie (argument: please add if you know one)
• (Q3) Subquestion of (Q2): If Transnistria is preferred, is that a precedent to change other names to English-prefered ones? Possible answers:
  • 1) no, because both are local names, so a local name was prefered
  • 2) yes, because although both are local names, the way one of the local names was prefered was based not of a random choice but on choosing the one more often used in English.
• (Q4) Do you support renaming this article from List of countries to List of countries and territories?
  • yes
  • no
  • ambivalent/other

Thank you for repling below. :Dc76 20:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(Q1)

• 3) parentheses for everyone:Dc76 11:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Definitely footnotes if they are listed separately; parentheses could be used if they stay in the main list. Alæxis_¿question? 11:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As of June, 19th, 2007, the votes cast are one vote for answere 2) and one vote for answer 1). The vote remains open.:Dc76
• (add which one you think is better, and your argument here)

(Q2)

• ...

Btw English-language press doesn't exclusively use the Romanian name (Transnistria): BBC prefers Trans-Dniester and The Economist ([4]) uses Transdniestria.

Transnistria is not a local name as well since in Romanian PMR is called Republica Moldoveneasca Nistreana. Alæxis_¿question? 21:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• ...

Transdniestria and Trans-Dniester are clearly variants of "Transnistria," and their usage doesn't amount to a very good reason to call the place "Pridnestrovie." john k 22:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not just variants - there is a subtle difference since Nistru is a Romanian name of the river and Dniester is an English name (stemming from Ukrainian one). Alæxis_¿question? 07:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that is, in fact, the definition of a variant. "Nistru" and "Dniester" are themselves mere variants, as they are clearly etymologically related. By a google test on English language sites, excluding wikipedia, there appear to be twice as many hits for "Transnistria" as there are for "Transdniestria." There are still fewer hits for "Trans-Dniester" or "Transdniester," and fewest of all for "Pridnestrovie". john k 16:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I would add that "Transdniestria" appears to be sufficiently common that, if there is a strong argument against the neutrality of "Transnistria", I'd not particularly care about using one or the other. I can't see any argument for "Pridnestrovie", which is at least as non-neutral as "Transnistria," and also isn't used in English. john k 16:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Transnistrian Moldovan Republic, abreviated to Transnistria, as explained by User:Lexicon (see this and this), because it gives the most google hits. :Dc76 08:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Alaexis is absolutely right that Trans-Dniester and Transdniestria are also used. Should I understand he proposes to use one of them? (b/c then applies what john k just told) What specificlly do you propose, Alaexis? Alaexis is mistaken about "Transnistria" not being the local name. Pridnestrovie is the abreviation of the "official" Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica in Russian. Transnistria is the abreviation of the "official" Republica Moldovenească Nistreană in Romanian. Both languages are official according to the Transnistrian authorities, the second under the name Moldovan. What do you propose, Alaexis? Do you want Republica Moldovenească Nistreană without any abreviation? I might be inclined to agree with that, you'd have a point then. But then, please observe that we'd go away with the English altogether. Please, elaborate. :Dc76 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't proposed anything yet. It was just a comment. Alæxis_¿question? 07:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1) but per my note on Q3. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Closure of the vote Transnistrian Moldovan Republic, abreviated to Transnistria, as explained by User:Lexicon, this is already in the article:Dc76 17:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(Q3)

• 2) We need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia intended to serve as an initial reference for the general reader (in this particular instance, the general English-speaking reader), rather than experts in the field. As such, it would help the greatest number of general readers if we rely primarily on the name by which a country/entity is most commonly known/reported in the English-speaking world. Since a Wikipedia list is most essentially a navigational aid, I see no harm in also listing – following the short and long names (and in order of decreasing frequency of usage) – other versions commonly encountered in English-language publications. This would serve both as an aid in searches and a confirmation to a reader coming to Wikipedia knowing only the “alternate” name that they’ve found the “right” country name by which to find further information in Wikipedia. Taking this approach, IMO, a name like “Pridnestrovie” would fall off such an “Other names:” note since it is so rarely encountered, but its inclusion would be nothing anyone need fall on their sword over. Because problems with transliteration and rough handling on foreign tongues tend to create numerous examples, it might be advisable solely for the purposes of this list to arbitrarily limit the number of alternative names included to, say, 4-5 might be advisable (with the understanding that the issue will be more completely addressed in the main article on that country/entity). Askari Mark (Talk) 18:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• 2) Although I am not accustomed with the anglo-saxon "logic by precedent" :-), I must admit that the arguments by Askari Mark above seem logical to me per se. I am going to support "the name by which a country/entity is most commonly known/reported in the English-speaking world", regardless of whether this is because of a precendent or because of a rule we agree now on. I'd prefer it to be so because of the latter, but anyway, what matters is the conclusion. In the case of Macedonia, I personally believe the long term solution will be "Republic of Macedonia", similar to "Czech Republic". It has the advantage of being both the (long) official name, and a name that unlike "Macedonia" without anything does not draw automatic protest from Greece. A theoretical solution could also be "Northern Macedonia", but I think it is utopic to believe the country would change its name. So, I'd support "Macedonia, Republic of; also known as FYROM" or "Macedonia, Republic of" to be the way it's entered in this list. :Dc76 11:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Closure of the vote. With 2 supposrts and 0 opposes, the case Transnistria and Transnistrian Moldovan Republic can be used as a precedent to support changing other names to English-prefered ones (as opposed to the names in the local language). In the absence of an explicite WP policy and recommendation on the matter, which in particular should specifically address the situation of naming countries, the following phrase aquires status of recommendation by precedent: "although both are local names, the way one of the local names was prefered was based not on a random choice but on choosing the one more often used in English". If and only if WP issues an explicite policy or recommendation, it will effectively overrule this recommendation by precedent. :Dc76 17:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(Q4)

• List of countries and territories. Let me add that my main reason for the proposal is the case of Kosovo. :Dc76 08:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'll post my arguments from the sovereign states list talk

List of countries has been the name of the list for a long time and I don't see a good reason to change it considering that we don't add anything new there here and taking into account what country means in English (per Webster's).

To me it looks vague enough and simple enough. The first sentence of the intro mentions what kinds of entities are present in the list - independent states (both those that are internationally recognised and generally unrecognised), inhabited dependent territories and areas of special sovereignty. 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Alæxis_¿question? 09:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Forgive me for adding a third option, but I think it's relevant. In general I favor "List of countries", essentially for the same reasons given above, and the fact that this list doesn't even begin to address all of those "territories" lying around out there. However, it might be wise to rename this list to "List of modern countries" (or some such), partly because that is what it is, but also to avoid inviting the sorts of controversies over historical names for countries and territories that have arisen in several articles already. (For example, does anybody want to handle resolving the Macedonia issue here as well as elsewhere?) Askari Mark (Talk) 18:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue seems quite strange to me. Doesn't one have the right to call oneself as s/he likes? ))) Alæxis_¿question? 18:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A strange case, indeed. Greece sees the name "Macedonia" as a claim on its own ancient territory of Macedonia, so the diplomatic solution was for the new nation to formally call itself the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (FYROM). A much better solution than inviting an invasion from Greece. In time – oh, say a thousand years or two, given the nature of the Balkans – simplifying the name to "Macedonia" might become traditional, if not entirely acceptable. ;-) Askari Mark (Talk) 00:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• yes, I support the renaming. Here, you'll find what is the common sense for the term “country”. Saint Pierre et Miquelon, like numberous members of the list, obviously is not a country (full name Territorial Collectivity of Saint Pierre and Miquelon). Therefore, the current article name is highly confusing, and it's a shame to have kept it for a so longtime. --Juiced lemon 23:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• • As of june 19, 2007, the vote is two votes for List of countries and territories, one vote for List of countries, and one vote for List of modern countries. The vote remains open. Since the issue is quite important (renaiming the article), I think we should wait for at minimum 7 votes, and be sure to have at least 60% of votes supporting a particular proposal. Also, it sould be nice to refrain from closing the vote at least for 72 hours after a vote is cast, e.g. if a bounch of people vote today, only in 72 hours one can close the vote. Of course, this is only my personal oppinion about the procedure, but if noone would oppose it or suggest other numbers (7 votes, 60%, 72 hours), I'd assume (until someone opposes it or proposes smth else) it to hold.:Dc76 17:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• No renaming. I do not think there is a perfect name for this article. The problem of the word territory is that is also used for divisions of countries, like the Northern Territory of Australia of the Yukon Territory. Modern countries doesn't add information to the article. I am a proponent of List of countries with a clear definition as it has now. Electionworld Talk? 18:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• (add which one you think is better, and your argument here)

Vote:Proposal to merge List of states (List of sovereign states) and this list

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)

Delete this list

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.[5] 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 ([6]). 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)

Palestinian Territories

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)

Kosovo belongs on other lists but not this one

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)

Informal vote on this issue

Perhaps we can have an informal vote on what contributors think of this discussion, as we have no consensus to include and are going around in circles? Do you think Kosovo should be included on this list given the criteria for inclusion? Given the low level of editing at the moment, I propose we leave this vote open for at least ten days whilst we assess a possible consensus. Please do not revert the main article in meantime. DSuser 14:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Remark. Keep in mind that Kosovo was on the list and it was debated before. Therefore there should be a strong majority for deletion before it can be deleted from the list. During the vote it is ok, but if the vote doesn't bring a strong majority for deletion (consensus is too much to ask for) it means re-inclusion. Electionworld Talk? 14:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As Kosovo meets a number of the criteria in the Annex for not appearing on this list, a consensus is required to include it. DSuser 14:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• No Kosovo is a province not a country (see Kosovo and Constitutional status of Kosovo). It has not been given a status by the UN Security Council (see Kosovo status process), it is merely under administration by the UN. It has not declared independence and does not seek recognition and so we should certainly not claim status for it or prejudge what status might be. It should not be included here under six separate reasons according to the Annex to the list of countries, which tells us which entities we should include on this list: we should not include autonomous areas, sub-state units of federacies, disputed or occupied territories, places under the control of UN Missions or entities not claiming sovereignty. Just because it is slightly different ('sui generis') is not reason to ignore all this: otherwise we would include the EU as a country. And on top of all this, to include Kosovo as a country would put this list in conflict with many, many other Wikipedia pages including the List of unrecognized countries, the List of United Nations peacekeeping missions and the List of subnational entities, let alone Constitutional status of Kosovo. I vote against including it as a country, given this weight of evidence against. Kosovo is a province not a country. DSuser 14:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• No Kosovo is still de jure part of Serbia and it even hasn't yet declared independence, as I said above --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Independence is not a condition sine qua non to be included in this list. Electionworld Talk? 14:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please assume that the contributor will have read all of the reasons against inclusion, including the six in the Annex. DSuser 14:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it's currently in a sui generis status which amounts to de facto independence, as it's exclusively supervised by the UN without any input from Serbia whatsoever. —Nightstallion 14:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• No Kosovo's status is weird, but it is clearly not an independent state (yet). Even the Kosovars acknowledge this: they are, after all, seeking their independence, right? Once Kosovo declares its independence and seeks recognition, then I think it would deserve a place on this list (I'm assuming here that at least a few countries would recognize). One could argue that the Kosovars did declare independence in July 1990, but since that declaration was largely ignored at the time and even the Kosovars don't reflect on it much these days, I don't think it is relevant. In international law, there is one critical criteria by which to determine whether an entity is an independent state or not: do other states recognize it as such? In Kosovo's case, no state does so. For example, no state has established diplomatic relations with Kosovo. No state would consider Kosovo for membership in international organizations for which sovereignty is an entry requirement (UN, IMF, OSCE, etc.). Considering the high likelihood that Kosovo will be independent by the end of the year, let's just be patient and wait until then! Envoy202 16:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Independence is not a condition sine qua non to be included in this list. Electionworld Talk? 14:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please assume that the contributor will have read all of the reasons against inclusion, including the six in the Annex. DSuser 14:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• No Kosovo isn't a country, it is still a Serbian autonomous province and it shuld be added here only when and IF it becomes an indepedent state, after internationally recognized independence and not a moment sooner !!! Ringwraith46 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• No Per Ringwraith46, Kosovo is not an independent state; it is a province of Serbia. --Bolonium 20:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• No While I appreciate the comment made by Nightstallion and Kosovo/a's unique status, it is a part of Serbia. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes Per Nightstallion. BTW this is a list of countries not soverign states (they are not the same thing), so any arugment about independence is irrlevelent. This page also lists 4 other areas (Macau, Hong Kong, Aland, and Salvbard) that are integral parts of a soverign state but due to their unique statuses, similar to what Kosovo has, are listed.-- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 01:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• No . Kosovo is still, at least presently, part of the state of Serbia, although largely independent. We should be consistent with the criteria outlined already, and it certainly does not meet it at this stage. Hxseek 06:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Yes Per Shocktm Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 07:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• No If Kosovo is included then so should all the provinces of Canada and other countries. Shocktm is right that independence is irrelevant (since the the British, American and French dependencies are not independent), but the various dependencies included on the list are not normally definied as integral parts (even if autonomous) of the controlling country (unlike Kosovo). Stocktm is also right about Macau, etc. but at least for Macau and Hong Kong he seems to have overlooked the fact that both of those areas have separate immigration controls and passports than the People's Republic of China. Hong Kongers and Macanese even have different visa requirements around the world than mainland Chinese (and each of the Special Administrative Regions has a de facto nationality law, similar to the British dependent territories). Whether or not Svalbard or the Aland Islands should be on the list is another matter, but Kosovo is not remotely comparable to the Aland islands as they (like Hong Kong, Macau and the UK dependencies) have a de facto regional nationality (in the form of"home region rights" and restrictions on "foreigners" including mainland Finlanders) and have membership in an international organization (the Nordic Council - like the Danish autonomous territories). Svalbard cannot also be reasonable compared to Kosovo, because (unlike Svalbard), UNSC Res. 1244 does not allow "other nations to retain the rights to their settlements" in the territory as the Svalbard treaty did for Svalbard itself. Nor are citizens of the UN members which passed Res. 1244 given rights "on a footing of absolute equality" to those of the local population for any thing whatsoever. Nor does the UNSC Res. 1244 permanently limit Serbia's authority over Kosovo (it only limits Serbia's authority until a solution is found - if the solution is a great degree of autonomy then the UN mission will end and Serbia administration will resume). The UN mission is after all the "United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo". UN administration is also not a criteria for inclusion, since prior to Kosovo, the UN had also administered 2 independent countries (Bosnia and Cambodia) and 1 dependent territory (East Timor) (and this is excluding UN Trust Territories). That being said, UN administration did not change the status of those areas: Cambodia and Bosnia did not lose their independence (and if they did, then to which country did they lose it to?) and East Timor did not immediately attain independence (it was still officially a colony of Portugal) when UN administration began (it gained independence when UN administration ended however). Likewise UN administration of Kosovo, does not implicity or explicitly change Kosovo's status from that of an autonomous province of Serbia.72.27.165.104 08:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, it is not necesary to be independent to be included in this list. See the discussion above and earlier debates. Electionworld Talk? 14:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• No Then on list should be: Quebec,Alaska,Texas,Basque Country (autonomous community),Catalonia,Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur,Scotland,Corsica,Lombardy,Saxony,Groningen (province),Walloon Region and more more others...... I say Enough,Kosovo is part of Serbia.Gradac 19:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Crown dependencies

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)

About Chechnya

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)

Renaming

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)