Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dependencies, protectorates, etc

Someone's been purging these from the list. Is there a really good reason for this?

Accepted use of terms

Please limit continent-names to terms which are in widespread enough use to merit their own WP article. Afreurasia, Eurafrasia, etc, are not widely accepted as terms, even though there are 4-continent systems which suggest various names for that aggregation of Africa, Europe, and Asia as a single continent. see Afreurasia, Eurafrasia, etc.

x-continent systems

I think we should ditch this commentary at the beginning of each section. We are essentially using the most liberal breakdown of continents which should, in theory, make the most people happy. All the specifics about how different groups of people classify the world into continents is covered in detail at continent and doesn't need to be repeated here. Ben Arnold 22:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the commentary and written a new beginning of the article. Chanheigeorge 02:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Americas

There should be North America and Latin America.

Those two areas overlap. Perhaps you meant Northern America and Latin America plus various other islands? //Big Adamsky 18:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither Northern America nor Latin America are continents. They are merely geographical regions. So we'll stick with North America and South America, which are continents. Chanheigeorge 01:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, C. E Pluribus Anthony 01:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What about Panama? The adjusted definition states that the territory north of the Panama Canal is in North America and that south be included in South America. Only problem is that the Panama Canal runs North-South so most of Panama is either West or East of this mark. What should be done about this?

transcontinental countries

Should these not appear in both continents? I would say that Turkey for example, qualifies as European in that it is in the council of Europe, applying for the EU etc. so to put them solely in Asia is a bit inaccurate. Also Russia is only in the Europe section, which is clearly inaccurate as a ginormous part of its territory is in Asia.

Right now, we classify a country in one continent only, according to the UN Statistics Divison [1]. I understand the problem of this, but putting transcontinental countries in multiple continents can also be a problem. For example, parts of Egypt is geographically in Asia. Should we include Egypt as an Asian country too? Some of the boundaries between continents are very vague. So I kind of follow what an atlas will do, by putting a country in one continent only, e.g. Russia in the Europe section. If people think of it as necessary, we can put a disclaimer that says, "Some countries are transcontinental, but they are classified in one continent only according to the UN Statistics Division." Chanheigeorge 01:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Why you put separately Guadeloupe and Martinique for example ? Isnt it just "France in the Americas"?and so it should be just one entity ?

In the same logic you do not name all islands of Netherland Antilles separately . Thank you. Otto

Guadeloupe and Martinique are also not administered togehter, and are separate entities (French overseas departments), while the Netherlands Antilles are one entity (at least for now). Chanheigeorge 23:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

In response to User:Chanheigeorge: 22:27, 9 December 2006 Chanheigeorge (Talk | contribs) m (There's only one country in the world called "Macedonia"; BTW, do I also always have to write "Georgia (country)" and "Republic of Ireland" too?)

Hi,

The given examples (i.e. Georgia and Republic of Ireland) are under the Georgia (country) and Republic of Ireland wiki-pages, respectively. For the first one, I would think that, the parenthetical disambiguation term can generally be disregarded since there is no apparent "danger" of misleading or misinforming a casual reader for the name of this state (let’s say due to an apparent dispute between the country with the US state). For the second one, the name "Republic of Ireland" is indeed valid but I guess after debates in its talk-page, there was a consensus within wikipedians to call this country as is when generally referring to it within WP articles and host it under that name. Regarding this and similar lists, I think that it is perfectly valid, practical, factually accurate and informative to call Georgia (country) as "Georgia" and Republic of Ireland as "Republic of Ireland"; but these types of arguments are, somewhat beside the point and have been debated numerous times as you might find out by the following clarifications.

For the (former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia there was a consensus - after very long and sometimes bitter - disputes, which unfortunately led to numerous edit-warring episodes but also enlightening discussions and debates, to call this country under its constitutional name (i.e. Republic of Macedonia); it was generally agreed to host it under that name (i.e. here: Republic of Macedonia and not under its original name here: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). The Macedonia page, which then was hosting the Macedonia (region) article, was reserved as a disambiguation page (as you might know by now).

It was also agreed to use appropriate disambiguation terms within the text and/or notes when appropriate. For example under certain contexts, it would not be accurate, perhaps, to use only its constitutional name (i.e. "Republic of Macedonia") but also the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (FYROM) designation, with which the state is recognized by various countries and many international organizations (e.g. UN). This, on the other hand, does not mean that we (an independent project/encyclopeadia) have to follow any policies dictated by governments, organizations or institutions for neither prerogative and/or point of views (e.g. countries that recognized it as "ROM" nor countries/organizations that recognize it as "FYROM").

If you like to find out more I would kindly ask you to have a good look at the painfully long Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia and its archives. Another useful page in this regard might be the recently featured article Macedonia (terminology). Hope this helps.

Regards Ninio 02:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Here's my take on this issue.

1. I'm very much aware of all the naming disputes about countries such as "Macedonia", "Ireland", "Georgia", etc. I've gone through some of the discussions previously, but of course not all, which is humanly impossible. However, to avoid using these names simply because of disputes is to me unencyclopedic.
2. I have no problem with how the titles of their wiki-pages are named. This is guided by many guidelines in Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and through long discussions, as it should be. However, I do not believe this completely dictates how they should be called in the various articles. To police that is, if not draconian, then most likely unenforceable.
3. The purpose of this article is to list the countries in the world by continent, while using their most commonly-used short names. It'd be potentially less confusing if we use their official names, but that would make the article less readable and useful. And with all due respect, for this article all I care is what the world call these countries, not what Wikipedians decide they should be called after numerous polls and debates. It is my belief that the most commonly-used short names of these countries are "Macedonia", "Ireland" and "Georgia" respectively, and not "Republic of Macedonia", "Republic of Ireland" (which is not even its official name) and (obviously) "Georgia (country)", even though the former names can be confused with other entities (but not with other countries). The usage of these names in this article is not an endorsement that they should be called these names, but simply a reflection that they are called these names. Chanheigeorge 07:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Subantarctic islands

I strongly feel that the southern islands of New Zealand belong in Oceania, since they are much closer to South Island than Antarctica. As for the Prince Edward Islands, they are closer to Africa than Antarctica, but not by much, so the case for their association with Antarctica is much stronger, though I still have reservations on the matter. See the transcontinental country discussion for the debate. Heff01 16:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is Russia?

Is it too big to fit a continent? :) -- ChongDae 16:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Definetly in Asia.

Definitely not. It's in Eurasia or, if you prefer, partly in Asia and partly in Europe but mostly in Asia. Jimp 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion of Name changing of this article

Reason: the inconsistency of the title: List of countries by continent and description which also include the dependency.--Ksyrie 23:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Malta

Malta is geographically African, but geopolitically European. Historically it has been associated with Africa much longer than it has with Europe. I'd like to see some feedback before I make the move. See the transcontinental country page for more. Heff01 05:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what this page is currently set up as. The main classification uses the UN definition [2], which classifies Malta as European. While in the section Transcontinental countries according to geographical criteria: Boundaries of Africa, it lists Malta as geographically African using the continental shelf definition. Chanheigeorge 19:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago

Currently Trinidad and Tobago is listed as being part of North America; however, Geography of Trinidad and Tobago says the country sits on the South American continental shelf. Which is correct? --G2bambino 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently this page uses the UN classification [3], which puts T&T in North America. While in the section Transcontinental countries according to geographical criteria: Boundaries between North and South America, it lists T&T as geographically South American using the continental shelf definition. Chanheigeorge 19:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

France

Martinique, Guadeloupe, Réunion and French Guiana are legally integrated into France. If we put French Guiana in South America, then it is necessary to put Canary Islands (Spain) in Africa or Hawaii in Oceania. It's absurd. (Sorry, I'm Spanish, I know that my english is bad). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.42.227 (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a somewhat valid point. This is my counter-argument:

• This article, dealing with continents, is more focused towards geography. So it uses a different set of criteria from an article like List of countries, which use a criteria more focused towards politics.
• Looking at common practice, if an atlas is listing the South American countries and territories, it's going to include French Guiana. Same with Guadeloupe and Martinique when listing Caribbean territories. However, for example, it's rather seldom for a list of Oceanian territories to include Hawaii.
• While the overseas departments are politically integrated into France, geographically they are often treated separately from the European part of France. For example, if you ask about the area of France, you'll most likely get a figure that only includes the European part. This is different from Canary Islands and Hawaii.
• The overseas departments do possess some characteristics of countries. For example, they are included in the ISO 3166-1 country codes, while Canary Islands and Hawaii are not.

The introduction also makes clear explicitly that the overseas departments are included, even though they are not really dependent territories. Chanheigeorge 18:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

different lists

There are different list in the english wiki(arranged by capital,state,...). In the german there is just one which is arrangable by the criteria. Wouldn't it be a opportunity here, too? --134.176.204.197 (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Political Subdivisions

Political subdivisions are not seperate countries and should not be listed here. Palmyra Atoll should not be listed on this page, it is a first level subdivision of the United States, and as such an integral part of it. It is not an external territory or dependency. Other outlying integral areas of states such as French Guiana should not be listed here either as they have no seperate status from their home countries under international law. If subdivisions were listed, then we would have to list them all, which would amount to thousands of listings. It would be better to put nations such as the United States, France, and Spain which have integral areas on different continents in the transcontinental section since that is what they actually are. XavierGreen (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I addressed this point a few sections ago in #France. Other similar lists such as List of South American countries and territories and List of Oceanian countries and territories also do list these entities. Given the vague and sometimes controversial definition of what a "country" is, perhaps a possible solution is to rename this page to List of countries and territories by continent. Chanheigeorge (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Official Languages

An inclusion of the official language(s) of each country would be very helpful. You can't always tell just from where the country is located. Jcatgrl (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sub-article titles

Wouldn't it be better if the sub-articles were titled List of countries and territories in Europe etc rather than List of European countries and territories etc? Australia, for example, could be considered a European country (a country with European heritage) even though it's not in Europe. Likewise Turkey is partly in Europe but it is not really European. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Article title

There has been an extensive debate over at Talk:List of European countries and territories about what should and should not be included in the list because of the title. Most editors there support moving the page to either List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe or List of European sovereign states and territories. If the European list is moved it is likely this list will be moved as well in the next few days unless there is opposition to such a move here. It would help to avoid confusion and disputes if the all of these lists (countries and territories by continents) have the same title. Saying sovereign state rather than country is a more precise term and is in line with the fact List of countries redirects to the list of sovereign states article.

If you have thoughts on the title please raise them here or ideally join the debate at Talk:List of European countries and territories. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

bs definition of continents

If you have a look at the continent page or if you finished your third year in school, you'd know that Oceania is not a continent. By all means, it might be convenient for you to break the world up into "South America", .., "Africa", "Oceania"; but the fact remains, it is an "area" or a "region", not a "continent". This page obviously needs an overhaul. I thought I should post this warning first so any opponents can try to redefine the term here first, rather than sabotage my inevitable changes.Owen214 (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

For ease of sorting information, we use Oceania, which is also used by the United Nations. No definition of the continents is correct. The continents under any definition do not match up with the tectonic plates. Europe is not really seperate from Asia geologically, but we invented the continents as a way of dividing the world into nice geographical and sociopolitical areas. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's correct, we invented the continents and they were (and still are) defined as large chunks of land. The division here might be useful, but it is incorrect. Call the page "List of states etc by world regions" if you'd like to divide it like you have now; don't try to redefine the term 'continent'. It doesn't match the continent page and it's no place for an encyclopaedia to try redefining terms as it pleases.Owen214 (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oceania is often commonly used in lists of continents for the sake of convenience. While I agree that it is not a continent, this article does note it is simply a region. Additionally, it aims to be inclusive, so Europe and Asia are presented separately for example. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oceania is made up of two geological continents (Australia and Zealandia) as well as islands emerginc from the pacific plates oceanic crust that are not part of any geological continent. Each of these two continents are dominated by a handful of polities so it makes little sense to give them each their own page/listing. For example the continent of Zealandia consists of New Zealand, Norfolk Island, New Caledonia, and some minor australian islands. The Continent of Australia consists of Australia, New Guninea, Coral Sea Islands Territory, and portions of Indonesia. All other countries and territories in Oceania are not part of any continent.XavierGreen (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom breakdown?

Should the UK not be broken down into its constituent parts (i.e. England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) with their respective capitals? London is rarely recognised as capital of the UK.Zerostarsimpson 12:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

London is recognized as the capital of the UK (and England as well). It is where the head of state, the head of government, and the parliament resides. Chanheigeorge 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. London is _always_ recognised as the capital of the UK. And this section is titled 'sovereign states' which means that the UK cannot be dismembered since none of the constituent parts of the UK are sovereign. There are only two sovereign states in the British Isles: the UK, and the Republic of Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.57.13 (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Cyprus

If your going to keep Malta (considered to be part of Africa) in Europe then you have to move Cyprus to Europe too. All islands in the Mediterranean are generally considered European. You just have to look at a map and see Lesbos, Chios, Samos, Symi and especially Megisti are all part of Europe even though they are so close to Asia Minor, so move Cyprus to Europe!--Waterfall999 13:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently this page uses the UN classification [4], which puts Cyprus in Asia and Malta in Europe. There's also a footnote on Cyprus (as well as a few other transcontinental countries) explaining their situation. Chanheigeorge 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes are not the right way to reflect the current political situation. Cyprus is part of the European union. see:

http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/index_en.htm

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/European%20Union

They even use the Euro as currency on Cyprus.

http://ec.europa.eu/cyprus/index_en.htm

The UN classification, in spite of it's recent revision date clearly does not reflect the situation on the ground and if possible wikipedia should reflect reality, not pieces of (outdated) paper or outdated online sources.

best regards,

 Jacques Mattheij 

(sorry, but I have no userid handy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.207.119.78 (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your reasoning but if EU member States are to be put in the same category as 'Europe' then we have a problem, since, for example, parts of the French Republic are nowhere near Europe nor are they on the European tectonic plate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.57.13 (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If Turkey is considered to be geographically Asian then Cyprus should also be put under Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.44.172 (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Svalbard and Jan Mayen - Longyearbyen (Norway)

I find it strange that this is on the list. I think we should keep to souverign states. Otherwise the list should be very long... Actually I think it is misleading to find it on the list.

I'm against territories like Svalbard or Guadelope too, as they are part of another country, but limiting the list to sovereign states is a bad idea, sovereign states, dependent territories and Antarctica are more than enough. Captain armenia (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal of improvements to this list

1. Sovereign countries in bold, dependent territories in italic.
2. Removing country names in native langauages. (There is already a list of countries and capitals in native languages)
3. Moving sovereign nations of dependent territories from after the capital to after the country.
4. Use templates with flags, such as Argentina.

Example (South America):

• Argentina - Buenos Aires
• Bolivia - Sucre (official capital), La Paz (seat of government)
• Brazil - Brasília
• Chile - Santiago (official), Valparaíso (legislative)
• Colombia - Bogotá
• Ecuador - Quito
• Falkland Islands (Overseas territory of United Kingdom) - Port Stanley
• French Guiana (Overseas department of France) - Cayenne
• Guyana - Georgetown
• Paraguay - Asunción
• Peru - Lima
• South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (Overseas territory of United Kingdom) - administered from the Falkland Islands
• Suriname - Paramaribo
• Uruguay - Montevideo
• Venezuela - Caracas

Chanheigeorge 03:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Good job! My only concern is that the bold names look a bit busy, I believe it's not considered good style to use a lot of bold in typography. What about:

Example (South America):

• Argentina - Buenos Aires
• Bolivia - Sucre (official capital), La Paz (seat of government)
• Brazil - Brasília
• Chile - Santiago (official), Valparaíso (legislative)
• Colombia - Bogotá
• Ecuador - Quito
• Falkland Islands (Overseas territory of United Kingdom) - Port Stanley
• French Guiana (Overseas department of France) - Cayenne
• Guyana - Georgetown
• Paraguay - Asunción
• Peru - Lima
• South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (Overseas territory of United Kingdom) - administered from the Falkland Islands
• Suriname - Paramaribo
• Uruguay - Montevideo
• Venezuela - Caracas

Ben Arnold 02:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I'll refrain from using bold at this moment, even though they're used in many similar lists, such as List of countries. Chanheigeorge 07:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just compared with that page. I think the flags make a difference. The level of contrast when you have both flags and bold text starts to interfere with reading. I'd choose one or the other. I like the way you use templates to get the flags and I don't think it's important for independent countries to stand out. But that's just my opinion! Ben Arnold 23:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I definitely like the flags but also like the bold text, as its more apparent. E Pluribus Anthony 01:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually italic text is hard to read, disturbing and non-viewable on many mobile devices, there is a great difference between sovereign states and dependent territories, so i find bold-normal much better, also simplifying isn't that good, accessing information about population, area, HDI, location or languages from one list seems great. Captain armenia (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Name

This article does not list coutries by continent, rather it lists them by region. Shouldn't the page be moved to List of countries by region?--Peta 23:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Then what exactly are Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Oceania, and Antarctica? Chanheigeorge 00:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oceania is not a continent for starters. --Peta 00:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The article continent should be pretty clear about the continent status of Australia/Oceania. Chanheigeorge 02:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that article, continent, contains some mistakes. The colour picture, for example, shows New Zealand as being part of the Australian continent. Note that "Oceania" is not a continent, but rather a region (this article is mistaken in including Oceania as a continent). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually there are 5 mayor contigious landmasses: Afro-Eurasia, Americas, Australia, Greenland and Antarctica, which must not be confused with continents which are just major geographical regions, the 7 region system is the most common and every of the mayor regions are called continents. Captain armenia (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Where are...?

Where are Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinh (talk • contribs) 19:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

AaD are included, while Ascension and Tristan da Cunha are full part of St. Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. Captain armenia (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Transcontinental countries

The page only lists 5 (Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia, Russia, Cyprus) transcontinental countries with a special note, i suppose adding Kazakhstan which has territory in Europe. Armenia in the same way as Cyprus (Armenia is a member of CoE, CoE is clearly based on Europe, unlike EU which excludes half of Europe), Israel which is a CoE candidate, sub-antarctic countries with nearest populated continents for their exclusion from the UN geoscheme, Clipperton Island in Oceania for their exclusion by the UN and Greenland for its cultural connections with Europe.
P.S. Cyprus for example is noted to be in "West" Asia, but a member of EU, just don't know the reason for highlighting the "West"? Captain armenia (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Plans for a «List of countries» page

1. There is already a page titled United Nations Geoscheme, to show continents and subregions according to the UN. That means that the current page shows countries by continent only for statistical convinience. I think that due to the small number of countries and a vast number of transcontinental countries the idea seems useless, a single list, without any divisions is much better. The list seems to relie on the UN geoscheme, which however doesn't list any of the 4 sub-antarctic countries, as well as the Antarctic continent itself, the reason of inclusion of some countries in Antarctica is unexplained and not based on any geoscheme, i think that South Georgia and South Sandwich are more South American, French Southern Lands and Bouvet more African, Heard and Mcdonald more Oceanian and Akrotiri and Dhekelia more European than Asian, some also consider British Indian Ocean more African rather than Asian. I remember that none of the above mentioned uninhabited countries is listed by the UN geoscheme, which makes the page only semi-based on the UN geoscheme, which interferes with the idea of making the page kind of undisputed and based on a canon source! I'm cardinally against seperating countries by continents which is a source of many disscusions and vandalism, a single list is the best option.
2. Northern America, Latin America and the Caribbean, Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the CIS, Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and the Pacific, South Asia and Antarctica are a good and modern replacement for the outdated continents. But still for this page listing countries in a single list is much better.
3. Of course if somebody follows my ideas, the page has to remove «by continent» from its name. Another idea is that «List of countries» is much better than «List of sovereign states and dependent territories», for most people «country» is a much more convinient term than a «sovereign state», and a lot of people don't even know about dependent territories! I hope that wikipedians would follow me and rename the page to «List of countries», unlike similiar page «List of sovereign states» it would also list dependent territories, wikipedia seeks a simple and general page like that! I can't imagine a wikipedia without a list of countries!
4. I also think that it's reasonable to delete info about territories which are technically part of another country, such as French Guiana, Macao or Bonaire and adding Antarctica, which fits the definition of country (country, not sovereign state). Captain armenia (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Just about every piece of land fits one or another definition of "country". We have List of sovereign states, organised without continents. The UN geoscheme is probably the most neutral division out there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you read my post, the UN definition ignores many countries and Antarctic continent. The most neutral is a single list without dividing the countries. Captain armenia (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The UN only includes areas with a permanent population. We do have a single list, List of sovereign states. You can try to delete this page if you want at WP:AfD. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't even give a straight answer, i just want to sort all countries in a single list, with a following change in the title, if somebody doesn't like my idea a new page with a single list should be created, with this one remaining. Wikipedia needs a page like that. Captain armenia (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This page has the purpose of sorting by continent. Otherwise it would simply be a duplication of List of sovereign states and Dependent territory. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a page titled United Nations geoscheme for the purpose of sorting by continent, if you see this page usefull, i'm not against it, but it's a duplicate of the UN geoscheme page, just with different styling, it's silly that i must visit 2 pages for a simple list of countries, there must be a single list with both SS and DT not sorted by continent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain armenia (talk • contribs) 09:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with any list is determining the inclusion criteria. It's difficult to determine what exactly a dependent territory is. Very few of the areas on our dependent territory article are officially regarded as not part of those states. Combining those in a list is therefore not itself that feasible (so we haven't), and add in sovereign states and the criteria are vaguer. Sorting it by continent allows for a clearer distinction between different these (for example, makes it much easier to justify including Greenland because areas like French Guiana are included too). The ISO 3166-1 has a good list, although once again it's only inhabited areas. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Subregions

What about listing the countries by the 22 UN subregions rather than continents. Captain armenia (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Lists of countries and territories - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 18:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue are sovereign.

The Cook Islands and Niue are not dependencies of New Zealand, and are recognized sovereign states, and classified as "Non-member State" by the UN. In foreign relations with third countries and organizations both are formally referenced and recognized as "independent and sovereign state" and they have bilateral relations of this type, in all but name, with New Zealand. For relations with New Zealand, the Cook Islands (since 1965) and Niue (since 1974) are still formally referred to in constitutional terms as "state in free association with New Zealand" instead of "independent and sovereign state", because they retained a residual constitutional link with New Zealand in relation to citizenship. Nevertheless, the Cook Islands and Niue have full independence and sovereignty in all other domains, and the residual citizenship link is reduced to the usage of New Zealand passport and privileges of New Zealand citizens for Cook Islanders and Niueans while in New Zealand. The Cook Islands and Niue have established their own nationality and immigration regimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatpopularguy123 (talk • contribs) 7:16, 18 May 2013

Do they actually regard themselves as sovereign states? The Cook Islands constitution declares that "the Cook Islands people, because of their many natural links with New Zealand, have determined to exercise their right of self-government or self-rule or independence -- call it what you will -- but not at this time as a separate, sovereign State." Niue's constitution doesn't say anything about its status though. SiBr₄ (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Self-government in free association is distinct from...independence. CMD (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Palau, FSM and Marshall Islands are also States in Free Association with the United States, yet they are independent.

IMPORTANT, PLEASE READ: I suggest you read every word in this discussion about Cook Islands and Niue, and PLEASE read the conclusion on the last part, because I don't want to make a new discussion out of this. I have read the conclusion of that discussion and the inclusion of Cook Islands and Niue succeeded.

The guys on the other page DECIDED TO ADD Cook Islands and Niue in List of Sovereign States because of SO MANY evidences that support it. If you can't understand please read the above!

AND PLEASE SEE THIS COURT RULING Court ruling, page 262

If you insist on treating Cook Islands and Niue as dependent territories of NZ then you should argue with the folks there and PLEASE DO NOTE THAT Cook Islands and Niue both appears as "other states" along with partially-unrecognized states in List of Sovereign States and Gallery of sovereign-state flags, which is still part of Wikipedia, and from my understanding, Wikipedia articles should not contradict other articles which are related to each other. And the third article to mention or imply that Cook Islands and Niue are sovereign states is Associated state, it says that Cook Islands and Niue are not dependencies of New Zealand and are recognized as sovereign states, and its reference is the COURT RULING. It is also classified by the UN as non-member states. LOOK AT THIS LINK: http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world00.pdf and this one too at page 23 number 86: http://untreaty.un.org/ola-internet/Assistance/Summary.htm

Please see all evidence that support SOVEREIGNTY. I'm sorry if I use Caps. I just need all of you to understand and to realize that there are people who already decided about this on the other page and they decided to add it. Please UNDERSTAND. Please notice all evidence and please read it. Cook Islands and Niue are Sovereign States.

Also PLEASE REMEMBER that Cook Islands and Niue are MEMBERS IN THEIR OWN NAME of a number of UN specialized agencies.

I'll give you more proof that Cook Islands and Niue are sovereign and independent on the next few days. Anyway, I'm not going to edit the page to prevent edit warring. PLEASE REPLY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If you read Talk:List of sovereign states/Cook Islands and Niue and came to the conclusion "The guys on the other page DECIDED TO ADD Cook Islands and Niue...because of SO MANY evidences that support it" then you've misread that conversation. CI/Niue made it in only just, after years of discussion. CMD (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes it took a long time for Cook Islands and Niue to make it on the list. But it will never be on the list if there are no MANY evidence that support it. The court ruling is an enough evidence for me. Do we need to take years for CI and Niue to make it on this article as a Sovereign State? Or why don't we just apply their decision and consider them Sovereign states in this article?Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the sources you're spouting? Each court case in that source had to do with a very specific legal situation, and below those cases there's a statement by NZ that they aren't sovereign states. CMD (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

And why would we consider them sovereign states in this article if they don't even consider themselves sovereign states? Niue and the Cook Islands are recognized as sovereign by one and three states, respectively, so at least 190 countries agree with them that they're not independent. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

First question, {{big|Why does three Wikipedia articles especially List of sovereign states, lists Cook Islands and Niue, if that list is only for sovereign states? If that article considers CI and Niue as sovereign states, then this should too, right?

Second question, If you think that Cook Islands and Niue are recognized by a very small number of countries, why are other states which are also recognized by a very small number of countries (8 to none) considered in this article as a partially-recognized sovereign?

Third question, Cook Islands and Niue has a government, a population, a territory and is recognized by at least one recognized sovereign state, why do you think it is a dependency or territory of New Zealand, especially for the part which says recognized by at least one recognized sovereign state?

Fourth question, Why does Cook Islands and Niue are members UN specialized agencies? Kosovo is also a member and it is considered on this page as a partially recognized sovereign state. I know UN specialized agencies have different rules. But why is CI and Niue not sovereign states in this article???

Fifth question, Why is the map provided by the UN considers Niue and Cook Islands, NON MEMBER STATES and not dependencies of New Zealand?

Sixth question, Why does the CIA World Factbook says that Niue's independence was granted on October 19, 1974?

Seventh question, Why does this on page 4 say that "New Zealand responsibilities over external and defense affairs, in the name of the shared head-of-state, on behalf of the governments of the Cook Islands and Niue, are maintained only at request and with consent of these governments and these responsibilities confer no rights of control for New Zealand over the Cook Islands or Niue"?

Eighth question, Why does this on page 11 say that "the responsibilities of New Zealand for external affairs and defence do not confer on the New Zealand Government any rights of control. Full legislative and executive power, whether in these fields or in others, are vested in the legislature and Government of Niue. Where the New Zealand Government exercises its responsibilities in respect of external affairs and defence, it does so in effect on the delegated authority of the Niue Government"?

Ninth question, WHY IS COOK ISLANDS MENTIONED as an INDEPENDENT NATION HERE??? and it says the Cook Islands gained independence on 4 August, 1965? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatpopularguy123 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

10th question, Why are we wasting time discussing about this if a bunch of other Wikipedia editors already agreed to treat Cook Islands and Niue as Sovereign states? Do we need to take years to resolve this? NO. Let's just apply what they have decided. Why aren't we applying what other editors have decided in List of sovereign states?

11th question, Oh and hey CMD, I saw in the poll that you SUPPORT to add Niue and CI in List of sovereign states. But why are you opposing it here?

PLEASE ANSWER ALL ELEVEN QUESTIONS! PLEASE ANSWER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. sorry for the caps, i am not shouting Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

1. and 10. AFAIK, the Cook Islands and Niue are in List of sovereign states because they are recognized as sovereign states by three and one countries, even though they don't regard themselves as such. On this page, the question is not whether they should be included at all, but whether they should be listed in italics or bold. (To be clear, I'm against considering them sovereign both in List of sovereign states and here.)

2. These other states are also in List of sovereign states under "UN non-members". The difference between these and CI/Niue is that unlike CI/Niue, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, etc. all have declared independence and consider themselves sovereign. These are shown here in bold italics because very few countries recognize them and because they are not UN members.

3. There are a lot of other areas with a population, territory, and government on its own: for example Bermuda, Curaçao, the Faroe Islands and Puerto Rico. All of these are self-governing territories, not sovereign states. The only difference with the Cook Islands and Niue is that CI/Niue are recognized as sovereign by a few countries.

6.–9. None of these sources are from Niue, the Cook Islands or New Zealand themselves (they're from the US, Germany, Germany and the UK respectively), so these sources only prove their recognition by other countries. I've presented a Cook Islands government site above which declares that they are not a sovereign state. I'd imagine Niue has a similar position.

The question is: does recognition from some countries (and membership in some UN organizations) make them sovereign states, especially when they basically view themselves as territories of New Zealand? Would it be a compromise to show them in bold italics because of their recognition and keep only the UN members and observers in bold? SiBr₄ (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The short answer to all those questions is because CI/Niue have a unique constitutional situation. They have been granted full self-determination, and have determined not to take full independence.

4) Hong Kong is a member of APEC, Monteserrat is a member of CARICOM. Membership of international groups is not necessarily indicative of statehood.

5) Because that's what the makers of the map decided.

10 & 11) The List of sovereign states does not include other categories, so they're mentioned. Note that they're also included in the NZ extent in the same way dependencies are for other countries. Their inclusion in that list in that manner was not a start to a shift throughout the wiki, it was a hard-fought compromise. On other pages, such as this one, we have other options.

If you're not shouting, stop using caps. It's hard to take such bold text seriously. CMD (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay thanks for your answers, now I can understand it more. Sorry if I used caps. I am not really shouting, it's just my way of highlighting important text.

Thanks for explaining it. Sorry for the disturbance. Hope we can be Wikipedia friends, CMD and SiBr4. :DThatpopularguy123 (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

New/old proof of Cook Islands being a state! And Niue too!

It says in this page and I quote, "the Cook Islands became a State in free association with New Zealand", unquote. That is the official Cook Islands Government website, if I am not mistaken.Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It says in this page and I quote, "The island remained a territory of New Zealand until October 1974", unquote. That is the official Niue Government website, and I know that I am not mistaken. It only means that Niue is, by all means, NOT a territory of New Zealand in the current year 2013.Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Being a state isn't the same as being a sovereign state; see for example the U.S. states. Citing the same Niue government page, Niue "adopted self-rule, but continues to retain New Zealand citizenship". In other words, it gained more autonomy, but still isn't an independent country. SiBr₄ (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

ohh okay.. Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with CMD's take on the position of CI and Niue in international law. These two entities (CI and Niue) are treated as sovereign states under international law - even if they only have recognition from a few states - and they function as independent entities in the international arena. CMD insists to minimize their statehood based on a very literal reading of legal texts which do not reflect the current in practice status of these two countries. I ask anyone willing to discuss to review the discussion on [[5]] first. If no one opposes after a few days, I will return the CI and Niue to bold. i think this is only fair. Under the current scheme, we have agreed to list Palestine (an entity whose statehood is much disputed) together with the UN members, so why should CI and Niue be minimized by not allowing them an status we have afforded to it (or to Abkhazia, for that matter)? Ladril (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not insisting on minimising anything. The current practice of these two states is to interact independently with the international community, but the current practice is also to swear allegiance to the Queen of New Zealand and to travel around as New Zealand citizens. Opposition to your change is quite clear. CI/Niue are in now way "minimized", and whatever we list them as has nothing to do with fairness. CMD (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Not so sure about the "substantial opposition" thing, but let's leave that aside. Also, the moment you say "they only just made it to the list of states" implies you are passing judgment on their statehood. You are certainly free to pass whatever judgment you like (that's freedom of thought and expression) but what encyclopedia articles must and do reflect is the status of subjects of international law in practice. Palestine may not unequivocally fulfill all the on-paper requirements of statehood, but in practice they are accepted as a sovereign state and UN nonmember state (and on this basis they are listed alongside UN members on that other page). Likewise, CI and Niue are in practice accepted as sovereign states. You can disagree on the status of CI and Niue based on whatever arguments you like, and I can disagree with Palestine's status all I like based on my own arguments, but in the end, neutrality require that we try to use the same bar to measure all cases. So if Palestine listed alongside all UN members is seen as valid based on the practice of international law, then CI and Niue are also states based on the practice of international law.

We are very much aware that the CI and Niue represent a special case of statehood because of the special relationship they have with New Zealand. Everyone also seems to agree that CI and Niue possess some characteristics of a sovereign state and some of a dependent territory. But it is also fair to say that you have made discussion of the subject difficult by refusing to even consider other evidence beyond one or two very outdated sources, while ignoring others that describe their status in more up-to-date terms. As a result, your contributions to this topic have amounted to little more than emphasizing the "dependent" part of the relationship while opposing any attempt to further emphasize whatever "sovereignty" they have (thus making all the previous discussion basically worthless beyond the List of sovereign states page). This is not a very good way to go about it (even if you have persuaded some users here by having the advantage of presenting only your side of the issue). Ladril (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere else on this page does the phrase "substantial opposition" come up when I search, so I'm unclear as to what you're referencing. "they only just made it to the list of states" has nothing to do with my opinions or judgement on the states, it's a quite simple reflection of the fact that discussion that lead to it lasted over a year, and went through many close votes. You could hardly say it was simple or easy.

Foreign relations aren't the only factor that makes something a state. The same bar applies to both.

I've considered all evidence presented on the subject; in fact I spent over a year doing so. I could just as easily claim you've ignored sources pointing to the view opposing yours, and that your contributions have amounted to little more than emphasising the state-aspects and de-emphasising the dependent aspects. I'm not going to, but that's how it looks. As for outdated sources, [6] for example is from 2005.

I've not at any point tried to emphasise either "part" of the relationship (and don't see why either needs to be emphasised in any way). If it appears otherwise, it's only because I've been discussing with those very strongly arguing one point of view. The discussion at List of sovereign states was hardly worthless, unless perhaps one feels the discussion should have led to unequivocally noting them as states on all other pages, a position just as simplistic as saying they should be unequivocally called "dependent territories" on all other pages just because they appear on Dependent territory (and I know of no pages where they are called "dependent territories"). CMD (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You said: "Opposition to your change is quite clear." Synonyms of clear: appreciable, considerable, substantial.

You could also try accusing me of anything, but you would have a hard time demonstrating that I have not made an effort to respect consensus and taken a balanced view while editing CI/Niue articles. As I said before, whenever this issue comes up what you do is to brandish the same one or two sources as if they were the only thing written about the matter, and as if the previous debate had not happened. That's not something very sporting to do or very constructive for Wikipedia, I'm afraid.

"Foreign relations aren't the only factor that makes something a state." Who is arguing they are? (we both know it's a very substantial part of being one, though). My only reason for comparing Palestine to the CI and Niue is to show how, while the current setup for Palestine reflects the in practice international law status of this entity, also the CI and Niue must be highlighted for their status in practice. If all your argument amounts to is the old chestnut "the constitution says they are not independent", that reflects zilch understanding of the previous discussion. How do you expect the other side not to be frustrated?

As a PS, your "from 2005" source says that the free association relationship is not a qualification of Cook Islands statehood. Just FYI, this is one of the arguments we used for including the Cook islands in the List of sovereign states Ladril (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I was confused by the quotation marks. I've not heard/seen those words as synonyms of "clear", but I was using clear in the sense of easily visible/easily seen.

I obtained those sources from the debate (and probably from others), so I find it very doubtful I'm acting as if the debate hadn't happened. I'm not going to try demonstrating anything, but I feel my editing has been balanced as well, so that's likely all down to opinion.

I haven't mentioned the constitution in this conversation. I've also noted that the "in practice" status is more complicated than just being full states, and the legal opinions I've seen have differed, probably due to different questions being asked.

I've never claimed free association impinges on statehood. In fact, I've never seen anyone bring up the opinion it does (and I was at that conversation, and if you recall, voted for inclusion at the end). You speak of frustration, but creating new arguments just to oppose them doesn't help anyone clarify their positions. CMD (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position, and I apologize if I have misrepresented it in any way. Still, there are some aspects that remain unclear. You say "I've never claimed free association impinges on statehood", and yet you also mention that "the current practice is also to swear allegiance to the Queen of New Zealand and to travel around as New Zealand citizens". Sharing the head of state and citizenship are two of the most central elements of the free association relationship, so if your argument for opposing listing CI and Niue in bold is related to that, it contradicts your previous claim. So the question is: you are basically saying that the reason for not designating them as sovereign states is based on these shared characteristics? Ladril (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Free association is sort of a self-defining status, and upon its establishment an important part of it was that it could be changed (which is has, as shown by the developing CI personality and the relinquishment in the UN by NZ of treaty-signing status for its associates). The qualification, from my read, is that a note in the CI constitution of the responsibility of NZ to help does not mean the CI can be independent if it so chooses. Likely this is to do with the continuing self-determination free association supposedly brings. Given free association can be changed, a new formula may not have the adoption of NZ head of state and citizenship, but remain free association, possibly on a model of the US associated states.

As to your basic question, my personal feeling is that we shouldn't be designating them as sovereign states if most external sources don't, either by explicitly noting against this or by simply avoiding the question. Some sources of course do call them states. I assume that the reason for those that disagree it is a sovereign state is based on the shared characteristics. The letter from New Zealand explicitly notes citizenship as their main legal problem with calling the two states (all laws regarding citizenship are solely the province of New Zealand). As we've seen, states which don't share citizenship with them are in some cases perfectly happy to explicitly call them sovereign states. Legal quantum superposition, perhaps, where the result depends on the observer.

Would a solution here be to make them bold italics, and create a new bold italic inclusion note such as "Other territories with sovereign international personality"? CMD (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Your position is hard to reconcile with what sources have to say on the subject. The exchange of letters between the prime ministers of NZ and CI (http://www.cook-islands.org/files/SKMBT_42009022710260.pdf) specify that the free association arrangement does not place any restrictions on the freedom of the Cook Islands, and that it effectively ended "the dependent status of the Cook Islands" (first page). Also that New Zealand extended the citizenship to people (the Cook Islanders) living "outside the reach of its own laws" (page 2). And that the degree of involvement of New Zealand (as a state) in Cook Islands matters is reflected on the material needs assistance NZ provides, and also on CI (not NZ alone) safeguarding the values on which NZ citizenship is based (also page 2). Also that they owe allegiance to the Queen of New Zealand as their head of state, as you say. But this allegiance means Cook Islanders are free to *also* regard NZ as their own country, not that NZ law applies in CI. As far as I can tell, the arrangement is based on that. It's an unusual arrangement (as the source says), and it doesn't have all the implications you think it does. This is why the sovereign aspect of the relationship must be highlighted more. Ladril (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There's an assumed dichotomy I think between states and dependent territories, but what the sources seem to say, and indeed what was emphasised before the UN in 1964/5 (in the UN the opinion was offered that the Cook Islands should be given full independence and then be able to go back to free association), is that associated status was a third way. There are no restrictions on the freedom of the Cook Islands, but doesn't determine what they've done with their freedom. The point made upon the initial creation was that they were free to go to full independence or whatever they want at any time, and as I noted above, they have done so in many cases. As the source says, the partnership is "freely entered and freely maintained", so they've used their freedom to choose to maintain the partnership. New Zealand can not simply legislate for the Cook Islands, but as many sources note the Cook Islands can ask New Zealand to legislate for them if they choose, and they've chosen not to create their own citizenship but rely on NZ's citizenship laws instead. This is the use of NZ laws by their choice and not by dictate of New Zealand, which seems to be the pillar around what their relationship is, where the Cook Islands are free to ask what they wish for from New Zealand, like citizenship and head of state and defence, but are also free to unilaterally renounce them. My reading is that they are free to take up whatever sovereign roles they desire, such as international personality, but have chosen not to take them all up, like citizenship, yet remain able to take those up at any point they choose. Hence the lack of restrictions on freedom, as the option for choice is continuous and totally within their power. CMD (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Free association is a third way that can be interpreted as a continuum between sovereign state status and dependency status (the existing laws can be interpreted either way, depending on the specific situation). It possesses enough elements of internal and external sovereignty that it has been regarded as equivalent to independence for international law purposes (see page 41 of this document: [[7]]). Also, as you mention, it is not called "independence" in NZ legal language because as things stand now, independence would mean a severing of the relationship with the parts each going their separate ways. However, it has evolved enough in practical terms that NZ has exchanged ambassadors with its two associated states (thus treating them as separate subjects of international law ([8])).

So as things stand, we have the literal wording of the 1965 and 1974 constitutions, which state that CI and Niue decided not to pursue independent status at that time, on one hand. And indeed, during the first years of their existence as associated states they were not accepted as independent or separate subjects of international law (thus making them ineligible as sovereign states). On the other hand, we have the way in which their status has evolved in practice over the years, meaning that New Zealand treats them diplomatically as foreign countries, that their free association status is equivalent to independence for international law purposes, that some other states regard them as independent, and that they claim to be sovereign/independent in their dealings with other states. These are the elements on which the motion to treat them as sovereign states (with certain qualifications) is predicated. Ladril (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of these practices would apply also to the SMOM, but we don't note that as a state. We seem to be both saying the same things yet somehow missing a midpoint. What is your opinion on the solution I suggested above? CMD (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

1. The Order of Malta is not a state, and does not claim to be one (it claims sovereignty but not as a state). The CI and Niue claim to be sovereign states, even while they have a special relationship with New Zealand. Ladril (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

2. The point of all the law discussion based on sources is that it is O.K. both to emphasize the sovereign statehood of CI and Niue and to retain them in listings of dependent territories (without one overriding the other) so it would not be a bad idea both to bold and italicize them on this page (as long as what this means is clearly stated so as to avoid confusion). Sorry, but as long as people continue rehashing the same arguments in a way that sounds they are implying that CI and Niue are not sovereign I feel the need to continue to clarify what "free association" means. Ladril (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen a source noting a claim from CI/Niue to statehood. Some authors and other countries have called them states, but I haven't seen anything from them other than happily not commenting either way. I used SMOM to illustrate the parallel where they interact using diplomatic relations on a platform of equality with states even though they aren't considered one. Free association isn't necessarily sovereignty, so you'd have to clarify in each case. I'll implement the bold and italicisation in a bit then, pending any further comments. CMD (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The argument for treating CI and Niue as sovereign states for Wikipedia purposes stems not from the fact that they have diplomatic relations alone, but from the fact that they have claimed to be sovereign states in official communications with other states (see the joint documents they have signed with Japan and China). In other types of documents, such as those that seek to explain the terms of the relationship with New Zealand, they stop just short of calling themselves that, because as I have said before: "it is not called "independence" in NZ legal language because as things stand now, independence would mean a severing of the relationship with the parts each going their separate ways". That is, the two types of sources have different purposes, so the question is which one to give "primacy" to (the "sovereign" part or the "special relationship" part). As things stand, I argue that they are better listed with sovereign states (with some qualifications) because the way things have evolved, this expresses the de facto situation better. This does not mean that I want to minimize the fact that there is a strong relationship with New Zealand. That has to be highlighted as well. Ladril (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The article on Niue states that "its status as a freely-associated state has been accepted by UN organs as equivalent to independence for international law purposes" Equivalent to independence for whatever purposes is not the same as independence perse. Besides the UN does not recognise countries in the first place. Both articles also state that "defence and foreign affairs are the responsibility of New Zealand". These are not the hallmarks of fully sovereign states. So all relations of these countries with other states are still under the formal auspices of NZ. And I bet the ambassadors and consuls are all sent and given their letters of credence by the Queen in right of New Zealand. Who is the head of these countries in exactly that capacity. These countries do not claim to be sovereign states as has been mentioned in this discussion. They may have a very peculiar position, but that doesn't make them sovereign states. They are not recognised as such by any country. Not even the ones they have diplomatic relations with. They formally do not have diplomatic relations alone and they haven't declared themselves to be independent. And they are headed by the Queen in right of NZ in that capacity. Most importantly, there have been no declarations of independence and no foreign recognition whatsoever of such independence. Just an understanding with New Zealand in which the two countries became freely associated states. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

We are having this discussion on another page. Let's finish it over there. Ladril (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Jan Mayen

Either the Svalbard would be changed to Svalbard and Jan Mayen, either the 2 must be listed seperately. Captain armenia (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Jan Mayen isn't a dependent territory, it is part of Norway. Neither is Svalbard, but that is included because it is subject to an international treaty which limits Norwegian sovereignty. Jan Mayen is not subject to this treaty, despite being grouping with Svalbard for ISO purposes. Rob984 (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Senegal

Not sure how to edit on Wikipedia but Senegal seems to be missing from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.217.50.236 (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Missing entry has been noted. I will make relevant changes on template page. Thank you for spotting this, I must have missed it when I created the template this article utilizes. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Merges needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To move material from List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent and convert it to a template. Klbrain (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

---

We don't need this list, plus a page for a duplicate list for each continent. They should all be merged here, since they seem to fit. The continent articles also have such lists, which could remain as duplicates, merge here as well, or this list could be split up among them. -- Beland (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be better to turn this into a list of the lists. There is no benefit in having one combined list I don't think? In addition, List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe, for example, breaks down the list into a number of sections. It also includes maps, and allows you to sort the list by area or population. In merging, you could add the additional sections as sub-sections, and include maps, population and area. But it would become unwieldy. If this is also the case for other continents, the contents would become even longer then it already is. The current individual lists are a reasonable size, and certainly have enough content to justify individual pages.

An alternative to merging would be to make this simply a table of all countries (move it to List of sovereign states and dependent territories and remove discussion of continental boundaries), and allow sorting by population and area. This is the case for cities, with both List of urban areas by population and List of urban areas in Europe.

Rob984 (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Closing, given no consensus for any particular merge and no discussion for over 18months. Klbrain (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I was actually planning on tackling this merger project shortly in the next few days. I was planning on merging the content from this list into the separate lists for each continent, as this list is largely just a duplicate of List of sovereign states with some extra info. The plan I have is to then transform the list on List of sovereign states into a template and then include it into this article so both pages share commonality. This page will then additionally list the dependent territories that List of sovereign states does not include, and also direct the readers to the specific continental articles if the reader desires a continental separation. So in a way I have planned to do a reverse merger.- Wiz9999 (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wiz9999: Sounds reasonable to me; feel free to push on, as there weren't any objections to the list of lists proposal. Klbrain (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

But if the article is deleted, or converted into a list of articles on countries and territories in each continent, what would happen to all of that discussion on boundaries between continents and how each continent’s list would change if a different definition was used for continental boundaries? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That discussion really belongs on the Boundaries between the continents of Earth article anyway. - Wiz9999 (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Wiz9999: @Klbrain: Any progress? It has been a couple months and I wish to remove {{underconstruction}} tag as the page has not been edited for 7 days. Should I go ahead? Ping me please. Waddie96 (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Waddie96: No objection from me; the merge can be completed without the template in place. Klbrain (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Waddie96 (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I have now completed the majority of the merge that I proposed, the two most significant remaining tasks will be to merge "Geographical boundaries of continents" into "Boundaries between the continents of Earth", and merge "Continental intergovernmental organizations" into Continental union. But I don't have time at the moment to complete these tasks. I will return to them. - Wiz9999 (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: I am aware some improvements need to still be made to the Template Template:List of States. However, these can now be tackled on that template's page directly and it will automatically update the relevant sections of this article, along with any updates that occur in future on List of sovereign states. - Wiz9999 (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

There, I have finally gotten around to completing the remaining merge actions from this discussion. It took me much longer to find the spare time to complete this than I had initially expected, but at least it is complete now. - Wiz9999 (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent reverts

AuH2ORepublican claims in his edit summary that there are dozens of other articles accepting the formulation, "generally recognized". Perhaps we could see some of them. Not only that, no suitable RS is given for the removed material other than a personal website (non RS). Here are important List articles related to the subject at hand where not only is the expression not used, the attempt to introduce the expression is rebutted or challenged.

At the talk page of List of countries and dependencies by population we have this partial quote from an editor long involved in List article criteria:

..I note also the question of what constitutes a "generally recognised" sovereign state has come up. The problem is that the phrase "generally recognised" is not clear enough to be useful. If we need to distinguish the generally recognised from the unrecognised - and we do - then the only way to do it without WP:OR is through an external standard. Just as ten years ago we had to define the equally-problematic "countries and dependencies" based on an external standard. At List of sovereign states we have archive after archive after archive going over this precise point in a long and detailed discussion, and we eventually reached a compromise consensus based on UN status. It's not a perfect standard, but it's as good as you're realistically going to get.Kahastok talk 22:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

and at List of sovereign states "Being an observer state means there was a vote by the UNGA to make an entity an observer state. This is a clear position, unlike woolly notions of 'general sovereignty' and 'de facto sovereignty'."

It is a straightforward matter to produce other Lists without this formulation. A UN Observer state is a clear cut status and that is the way the List is organized, we do not need additional definitions and especially not for just one state (that would appear to be POV by definition).

Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I can understand that "generally recognised" can be problematic, since "generally" may be interpreted as "almost universally", so I have rephrased it to "widely recognised", which is rather WP:BLUE, since currently 180 UN members have recognised it (more than Israel and on par with China). Also linking to well-sourced section in Holy See article: Holy See#Status in international law. A similar additional link could be made to Palestine. --T*U (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see the difference between "generally" and "widely" in terms of OR nor does it answer the question of why there is a need to single out one state from all the rest for any additional definition. I did not actually raise any question about Palestine so I don't understand the reference there?Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I have edited so as to include the precise and sourced level of diplomatic recognition and per your suggestion in order that we are not picking out only one state, I have added the exact same thing for Palestine so that at least both observer states are covered.Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with putting in numbers instead of using a descriptive adjective. One small point: The use of "currently" makes it necessary to update every time the number changes, see MOS:DATED, but there exists a template system for "recognised by". I have changed the text slightly and inserted the template. --T*U (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

That's handy:)Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Galapagos

By what definition of Oceania are the Galapagos considered to be in it? I would assume Oceania lies west of a line between Hawai'i and Easter Island (both inclusive) - or at most Isla Salas y Gomez... I have removed them and also Chilean islands associated with South America (Juan Fernandez and Desventuradas). Please also see our own article Boundaries between the continents of Earth where the Galapagos and the other Chilean islands I have removed are said to be in South America Haltik (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Antarctic Islands

Corrected geographic location of the Antarctic islands that are not part of the Antarctic treaty system. It is simply wrong geographically to locate or associate these islands with Oceania, South America or Africa. The only other consistent link would be to associate all of them with their 'parent' countries region but that would be a political rather than purely geographic association. I have changed the region location to the ocean they are in - far more helpful for a lay reader and geographically accurate Robynthehode (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing Problem

Several entries in this article are presently in need of editing, but with the way that this article is structured, it does not seem to be possible to edit individual entries. Can a change to this article's structure be made so that such editing would be possible?Atelerixia (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Sicily

@AuH2ORepublican: Though I do not dispute the removal of Sicily from the Africa section for Italy (for obvious geopolitical reasons), I believe the original reasoning behind its inclusion there was due to its geological complexity and the ambiguity around this geology (see here and Geology of Sicily). - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, see these images; File:AfricanPlate.png and File:Evolutionary Diagram of Sicily (Revised on 20171113 19-00).svg. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Wiz, for making this clarification part of the record. I didn't have much space in my edit summary, but I did acknowledge that Sicily lies at the edge of the African plate (its location on a faultline between the African and Eurasian plates is often cited as a reason for the Island's volcanic activity). I have no reason to doubt the good faith of the editor who added Sicily to the list of transcontinental Italian islands. In particular, I had seen the map whose link you provided in which Sicily appears to be placed entirely within the African plate (which differs from how it is shown on the map in the Geology of Sicily article, where all of Sicily lies north of the border of the African plate). But that's different, of course, from saying that Sicily is part of Africa, or that it is not part of Europe. One interesting thing about that map is that it shows a significant portion of northern Morocco as being in the Eurasian plate; suffice it to say, just as I've never seen a reliable source describe Sicily as being in Africa (as opposed to merely being located in the African plate), I've never seen any part of continental Morocco described as being in Europe. As you and other editors have often explained, plate tectonics des not trump geopolitical factors (or even the eye test, I would add) when determining with what continent an island is associated. Cheers! AuH2ORepublican (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)