Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Why sovereign states?

Why is this a list of sovereign states and not a list of countries and territories? If we had a single comprehensive list we could just note next to each area its degree of autonomy. I don't see why readers should have to go to another page entirely to find the Cook Islands or Greenland, merely because of some diplomatic technicality.

I recognise that there's going to be some debate around the fringes, and I don't think micronations should be on the list, or areas under the temporary control of warlords. But I don't see the harm in erring on the liberal side in general.

Frankly the way this page and its related pages are structured seems blatantly POV to me. To adopt a neutral point of view we shouldn't be deliniating between different degrees of sovereignty. We should mention the issues (concisely), link to the territory's main article, and let people make their own distinctions.

Has this been discussed somewhere else? I'd really like to understand the arguments that led to the status quo.

Ben Arnold 02:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem would be how to select what entities can be in wand which entities don't belong to the list. Personally I would like to have an integrated list with all de jure and de facto sovereign states as wll as the dependent territories. I agree we would have to exclude micronations (like Sealand) and areas under the temporary control of warlords. I will make an effort to include the dependent territories in the new layout. Electionworld 08:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This sounds good to me. I suggest bold text for de jure countries, bold, italicised text for dependent territories and italicised text for de facto countries. Micronations and integral territories (Hawaii, Réunion et al) should be excluded. - Randwicked 05:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What counts as "de jure"? "de facto"? what counts as an non-integral territory? Without clear criteria for the labels, we are bound to trample on npov.--Jiang 06:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree as per Electionworld and Randwicked. I was hestitant but after reading the worked example I knew it was a nice proposal. — Instantnood 08:51, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

See the debate above on this talk page. When we create a list of countries page, it is possible to list of countries, independent and dependent, in one list with avoiding discussions on a the question of an entity is a sovereign state. When this move is agreed, the content of Talk:List of sovereign states/new layout would be the new content of List of countries.

  • the reasons for move copied from WP:RM
Add #Support or #Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

Support

  1. Support, see above Electionworld 21:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ben Arnold 00:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Instantnood 08:51, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Jiang 21:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. john k 23:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jerzy (t) 20:29, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  4. Tuf-Kat 20:33, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) (two topics sufficiently distinct to make two lists)

Discussion

I oppose the move because the distinctions are already made in the intro and the criteria is clearly spelled out. Adding entities that are obviously not sovereign states just makes this article less useful. Are we to delete the footnotes too? The article is fine as it stands.--Jiang 03:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I oppose the move on two grounds:

  1. IMO sovereignty is an important property, considerably better defined than "country". "Country" fades away into expressions like "the Piney-Woods country" and "Pennsylvania-Dutch country", and even short of that, devolves into PoV debates about whether The People (of Quebec, of Brittany, of Normandy, of the American South, and the new Soviet man) have made a choice to abandon some probably current but allegedly former ethnic identification in favor of one that is either less or more inclusive. These are especially poisonous, since they
    • turn ethnocentricity into a virtue, and
    • tend toward decisions by political sects that The People have chosen them to lead, because anyone who says that most people would rather be left alone to live their lives as they have been is ipso facto a sell-out who is too cowardly to lead the masses on to the glorious (bloody) future the sect has in mind for them.
  2. In any case, the question is mis-stated. If my point 1 above didn't make you angry either at me or at someone you anticipate arguing against my point 1, you may be capable of closing your eyes to an edit war in the offing. There can be two articles with two different purposes; one of them already exists, and IMO it was far better for me to create the other one as well, than for anyone to try to suppress either. If either of them really serves all the legitimate purposes of the other, the extraneous one should be VfDed. But that prospect is far too big an issue for a vote on this page, and if this vote doesn't fade away quietly, work will stop on both articles when news of this move proposal hits Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

--Jerzy (t) 20:29, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

If I understand you well, you want to have two articles. I can live with that, so I will withdraw the request. Electionworld 21:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Proposed was a move to List of countries. Instead of this move a separate article was created. Therefore I have withdrawn the request for a move. Electionworld 21:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reformatting

I've reformatted about a part of this page to avoid problems with table sizing and more importantly, to reduce code bloating. I'm out of time for now, so if anybody wishes to continue, please go ahead. What i've done is basically removed the table formatting and used semicolons for headings. I've also removed the redundant bolding and replaced short dashes with em dashes for clarity.

If there is a good reason for this page to use tables, please feel free to explain and revert. Zocky 04:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Cantus finished the rest. Thanks. Zocky 08:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Holy See

I'd propose to remove the Holy See from the list and just keeping Vatican City, because a) the Holy See is NOT a state (just the Vatican City is) b) mentioning both the Holy See followed by the Vatican City (the latter in brackets) gives the wrong impression that those two are synonyms. Gugganij 08:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

WP:FLC

This list is great. It needs some references to pass through Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Vatican City

(copied from archive)

It seems that the Vatican City does not fit the definition of a sovereign state that is given: it has no permanent population. No women, no children, only the Pope and his staff. I believe this is also the reason why it is not officially recognized by the United Nations. Remove, or at least add a note? --Chl 20:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Well, this may be a matter of definitions, but I would consider a permanent population to be one that reproduces itself. If it just means "someone present at all times", then Antarctica (for example) is populated too, because at any given time, a few researchers live there. Yet Antarctica and small islands that have only military or research personnel are generally classified as uninhabited. --Chl 19:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, the Vatican is always considered to be a sovereign state, even if it doesn't quite fit the definition. We should certainly not remove it. Perhaps it should be mentioned that it has no permanent population. john k 23:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Antarctica is populated by a constantly rotating set of individuals; Vatican City is the permanent seat of the R.C. hierarchy, who live there for extended periods (years, decades). Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, as far as I know there are about 50 laymen and laywomen having the Vatican citizenship. As all Vatican citizens are required by law to live within its borders (besides diplomates and cardinals), this fits into the definition. Furthermore, the Vatican law regulating citizenship includes sections which allows close relatives of Vatican citizens (those are spouses, children, siblings and parents) to receive a permanent residence permit (see [1]).
The Vatican City IS a recognized independent state. The only reason why it is not a member of the United Nations (by the way till 2002 Switzerland was not a member neither) is because the Vatican chose to be represented by the Holy See in the international arena. Nevertheless, the Holy See is listed as a Non-member state at the UN (see [2]) gugganij 19:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Republic of China (Taiwan)

I'm going to be a little insistent in dropping the footnote on Taiwan saying that this lists includes de-facto states for several reasons. First, the List_of_Countries lists the Republic of China on Taiwan as one of the 193 de-jure soveriegn states. Second, the List_of_sovereign_states lists Republic of China (Taiwan) as one of the 193 countries on the list. While the United States does not officially recognize Taiwan as a state, it made the unusual move of placing Taiwan in the "Other" section of its list of soveriegn states rather than placing it under the list of areas of depedency and special sovereignty. Also, the About.com geography page considers there to be 193 countries [3]. Viewpoints on whether or not the Republic of China is a de-facto soveriegn state or a de-jure one would be best left as a footnote under Political status of Taiwan rather than list_of_unrecognized_countries. Emotions can run extremely high on this issue of using the terms de-facto or de-jure because most people in Taiwan regard the Republic of China to be a de-jure state even if they are leaning toward Taiwan independence or reunification with Mainland China. There are already a few generations of children in Taiwan who are brought up to believe that the Republic of China is a soveriegn state at this point. Also most people in the world have heard of Taiwan and probably think it to be a country; they probably have not heard of many other areas in the world that are considered to be so-called de-facto states. Taiwan's passport is recognized and accepted by all countries in the world except for China; there are gangs who try to steal Taiwan passports and sell them in China because Taiwan gets better visa treatment than China does. While many Made-in-China globes would suggest that Taiwan is part of China (as well as the Spartys), most western atlases give Taiwan and China different colors on the political map.

I agree with the above reasoning and add the following. To call the ROC de facto independent (and thus not de jure independent), is complete POV. Only from the point of view of the PRC and those nations over which the PRC exerts influence can we say that the ROC is not de jure independent.
The only issue people really talk about is the ROC's recognition by other countries. De jure means by law. Now if we think this through, note that recognition, actually had to do with _de facto_ independence, not _de jure_ independence. Think about this. Is an act of larceny illegal based on how many people think it is so? The law exists before the act and judges whether the act is so or not. In the same way, the legality of Taiwan's government is legal or illegal regardless of recognition by other countries, and as it is a democratically elected government, it's hard to see it as illegal.
Even the very idea of a separation between "de facto" and "de jure" is on shaky ground. As the many political realist scholars will tell you that there is no international law besides that which is enforced by power--in this case since China can't invade Taiwan at this point, Taiwan is independent.
The reality is that there's no good principle here that can really separate between "de facto" and "de jure". We should just put specific footnotes about each situation. For the ROC, putting a footnote that goes to political status of Taiwan will be the best explanation of the situation.--DownUnder555 18:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"in this case since China can't invade Taiwan at this point, Taiwan is independent."

Yes, but since Georgia can't invade Abkhazia at this point, Abkhazia is independent too, right? The main question is: what is the big difference between Taiwan and Abkhazia? Why this article list Taiwan together with "sovereign states", and Abkhazia with "de-facto independent, but not sovereign states"? These two should be listed together. The sovereignty of Taiwan is a disputed issue. See this:

Fact is that Taiwan or ROC is considered to be a sovereign country by some, but it is also considered to be a part of the People's Republic of China by other. I do not know is it a good reason to list Taiwan together with 192 sovereign states, since sovereignty of these 192 states is not disputed as the sovereignty of Taiwan is. User:PANONIAN

===>ROC and Abkhazia The difference is that the ROC was and has been recognized as a legimitate government for decades prior to the victory of the Communists in the Chinese Civil War - some states are simply continuing their recognition, rather than recognizing a new government. The sovereignty of the ROC is in dispute, but the soveriegnty of Abhkazia is not. This is internationally viewed as an internal matter within Georgia, rather than the PRC/ROC, which is a dispute between two legitimate governments of China (whatever the political entity of "China" is defined as). The sovereignty of some of those states is disputed by some others, such as Israel and most Arab states. Justin (koavf) 17:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with the last change about this subject in the article. Taiwan obviously is an specific case in this recognized/unrecognized story, and it is the best way to list it as such. It should not be listed together with Abhazia, which is not recognized by any other country, but also should not be listed together with Israel, which is recognized by most other countries. The proper criteria to define an fully sovereign state would be that this state is recognized by most other countries. User:PANONIAN

Mergefrom List of sovereign state flags

Now that this list has a full set of flags and as there is a Gallery of sovereign state flags the List of sovereign state flags is almost redundant. So I propose that the last information from the List of sovereign state flags which is not in this article, is moved across and that that page is made a redirect. This is a similar merge to that which was made earlier this year for List of flags of UN members that was merged into United Nations member states and made a redirect.

To do:

--Philip Baird Shearer 12:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

All done apart from Merge template which will be done in a moment. Philip Baird Shearer 14:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not like the results, since now it became a list of flags of. It became to dominant. I would prefer the addition after the state name in brackets, like (Flag). Electionworld 15:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I can fully understand your POV on this. Perphase we need a table or an additional line instead. User:Renata3 is planning to break out the National coat of arms into a coat of arms of soverign states and persumbly one for nations which are not soverign. Perhapse that list could be incorporated into this one as well the extra line could contain: Flag and Coat of arms. I'm open to suggestions. Philip Baird Shearer 09:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


Criteria for inclusion in this list

In the articles List of sovereign states, List of unrecognized countries and List of active autonomist and secessionist movements I think it would help the reader a great deal if a clearer distinction is made between these categories:

  • a recognized state controlling most or all of its territory
  • a de facto sovereign state that lacks general recognition, but still maintains most of the attributes of a functioning state
  • an aspirant state, i.e. a group of people concentrated in a singel territory that want either a sovereign state or an autonomous sub-state within another state

Otherwise, it will be difficult to reach a consensus about what to properly call all these entities that may variously either want or have actual control and/or partial recognition. Then there are all those territories that don't want either sovereign statehood nor political union with or incorporation into another state, as well as disputed territories that don't seek independence. --Big Adamsky 19:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I do not understand why aren't US states included in this list? Or Scotland for that matter? Or many other places that fit the Montevideo Convention's definition? Certainly US states have all four of the following qualifications: "(a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) government, and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states". As do many other territories not included in the list. My point is: either Montevideo Convention's definition of a state is imprecise and vague or it is not explained properly in the article. I believe the criteria for inclusion should either be changed or clarified (or the third possibility - include all territories that fit this description). (Gr)(01:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

===>Not quite Scotland and Indiana do not have the capacity to enter into relations with other states. That is, they cannot create a pact/truce, declare war, impose sanctions, receive ambassadors, etc. -Justin (koavf), talk 03:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not know that this is what a "capacity to enter into relations" means. Because from layman's point of view they can certainly enter into economic, trade, cultural and even military relations (e.g. through cooperation of state national guards) with other states. It may be usefull for the readers like me to have this point clarified in the article. The article about the Montevideo Convention also does not explain this point. (Gr) (23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC))
Sorry to be a stickler but after some thought I am still not satisfied with Justin's explanation. The word "capacity" is really too broad. Seems like the first three criteria really predetermine the fourth one. If you have a defined territory and a government why can't the government declare a war? Say Texas vs Alaska? I mean suicidal governor certainly has a "capacity" to do so, doesn't he/she? Or how is this for "capacity": Texas can secede from the Union by mutual agreement and from that point on it is free to do whatever it wants. Therefore Texas has a "capacity to enter into relations...". And for that matter I don't really see how unrecognized de-facto states can exchange ambassadors either.(Gr)

Keeping Formatting

To all the folks who are editing Taiwan / ROC / et al. entries. Would you please take care to make sure that if Taiwan is going to be in a seperate entry under 'T' that it is written as 'Taiwan' with a note on the full name somewhere. I just cleaned up the Taiwan entry from 'Republic of China (Taiwan) - Republic of China (frequently known as Taiwan)'. This was not in keeping with the format of the other entries (short name followed by official full name) and needlessly duplicated the info. Whereever you want the entry -- fine - but make sure it is formatted in keeping with the other entries and the ordering is maintained. Also -- be careful with the footname to 'political status in taiwan' - moving around the entry might mess up that footnote. novacatz 06:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained addition of separatists regions to the list of Sovereign States

Can anyone here explain, why constituent parts of my country (Georgia) are being stubbornly added to the list of sovereign states??

Read the introduction and cease vandalizing the article; they are included because they are de facto sovereign states. If you continue to vandalize this and other articles, you will be banned for increasing amounts of time. —Nightstallion (?) 01:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't vandalize anything, I'm removing misinformation. De facto independant state is NOT sovereign state. Sovereign state is internetionally recognized one. De facto independent states are to be listed separately from the sovereign states. This is obvious. Oh, and your threats are pretty senseless actually.

This is List of sovereign states, not United Nations member states. I wasn't threatening you, I was laying out the consequences of your actions. Your edits to the List of unrecognized countries were good and appreciated; those here aren't. —Nightstallion (?) 11:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't edit anything to the List of unrecognized countries, I am not alone, as you can see. So, de facto independant state IS NOT a sovereign state. Do you mean that Spain, for example, has the same status as a constituent part of another sovereign state? It does not, because Spain is not constituent part of any other state, Abkhazia IS constitu ent part of another state. Which means, that Spain and Abkhazia are not to be listed together in one and the same list. What is unclear about this???

Read the intro to this article. Abkhazia and South Ossetia fulfil all the criteria for being a de facto sovereign state, so they are listed. I know that they are de iure constituent parts of Georgia; compare Ajaria, however, which is not in this list for the very reason that its status differs from the ones of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. —Nightstallion (?) 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I too think that listing Abkhazia and South Ossetia in this list is both confusing and missinformative. Even though it does fit the criteria described in the introduction most people (as I did on many occasions) skip it and go directly to the list of countries. Thus, it creates an impression that Abkhazia has the same status as France or United States. This is fundamentally wrong. I suggest either making a separate heading for unrecognized states a part of this article, or to indicate in very pronounced visual manner that certain countries are unrecognized. Irakliy81 22:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, sockpuppets are very unwelcome and will not help the debate. Renata 00:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone read something that could be called slander? I just made a note just in case someone needs it. Renata 14:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that including the de facto states in a separate section would make a lot of sense. john k 22:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

===>My take I'm all for excluding the de facto states, but people will incessantly argue about Taiwan/ROC, Western Sahara, Palestine, and maybe a little about the TRNC. -Justin (koavf), talk 01:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to alter the format of this article to separate the list of recognized states from the list of unrecognized sates? This would effectively merge this article with the List of unrecognized countries article and eliminate most of the confusion. The new format would be as follows: the article would have two parts 1) recognized states and 2) unrecognized states. Both would be listed in alphabetical order (as it is now) with some additional info provided for unrecognized states (as it is now in List of unrecognized countries). Irakliy81 08:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

An explanation in brackets is not enough. There should be two lists - of recognized and of unrecognized states. Why? Because they have absolutely different status! Inclusion of Abkhazia together with United States and Japan is a nonsense.
Now about Taiwan, Western Sahara and Palestine - it is not right to include separatist regions into the list of sovereign states just because you cannot agree about these countries. You have found the most simple solution, but it is not right solution!

I'll say it once more: This is a list of sovereign states as defined by the criteria laid out in the intro. If you insist, we can separate the list into UN member countries and non-UN member countries, but I won't let Georgian POV pushers turn this into an extended mirror of United Nations member states just because they can't come to terms with the fact that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are currently de facto independent. (And FYI, I'm personally in favour of reunification myself; Wikipedia should still reflect the current situation and be of utmost factual accuracy.) —Nightstallion (?) 09:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I repeat again - the fact is that status of the sovereign states is absolutely, totally different from the status of the de facto independant states. Which means, that they should not be in one and the same list.
You obviously don't understand the meaning of "sovereign". "Sovereign" does not mean "recognized by the United Nations" or anything like that. Read the introduction to the article and the definition of sovereign states as per the Montevideo Convention. —Nightstallion (?) 11:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Lets see, what Wikipedia says about sovereign states: "A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty. Recognition of the state's claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter into international agreements, is often important to the establishment of its statehood, although some theories do not make this a requirement - for instance, the Montevideo Convention."
So you have taken one of the "some theories", which dates to 1933(!) as a general and supreme rule!!
2x2=4; Constituent part of a sovereign state cannot be a sovereign state itslef.
Yes, exactly. This list uses the Montevideo Convention as its basis, which just so happens to be one of the two established conventions for what is to be considered a sovereign state. If you are so intent on only listing UN member states here (and you're still ignoring that we have United Nations member states for that), why are you not removing the other areas which are legally still constituent parts of other countries, as well? —Nightstallion (?) 13:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Because my obligation as a citizen is to remuve false information about my country. Actually this Montevideo convecntion cannot include any UN recognition for a simple reason that there was no UN in 1933.
This theory from the past world is brought here for political reasons probably. You know, there are some other theories, which date to 1933. Nazism for example. You would probably use some of it's regulations too, if you needed it in today's world?
Welcome to Godwin's Law :) Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 16:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

===>This is exactly why this is hard:

"Now about Taiwan, Western Sahara and Palestine - it is not right to include separatist regions into the list of sovereign states just because you cannot agree about these countries. You have found the most simple solution, but it is not right solution!" Unsigned by User:212.72.135.223

These aren't separatist organizations at all. The ROC is a rival government of China, Western Sahara is a non-self-governing territory for which decolonization was never complete, and Palestine was never a part of the State of Israel. Either people are ignorant about these topics, or belligerent. Sometimes both. -Justin (koavf), talk 16:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I propose to separate the list in two: 1) the list of 191 UN Member states + Vatican City and 2) the list of partially recognized and unrecognized states which will include: Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Palestine, Republic of China (Taiwan), Somaliland, South Ossetia, Transnistria and Western Sahara. As both list will be presented in this article it will account for every currently listed state. Irakliy81 17:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To Justin (koavf)
I know that these three states are not separatrist regions, I didn't mean them! I am trying to say, that you include REAL separatists regions to the list of Sovereign States just because you don't know how to decide the problem of Taiwan, Palestine and Western Sahara. You have found a "simple" solution and piled everything up, so that constituent parts of real sovereign states with indisputably recognized borders are also listed as "sovereign states".

===>I'm with you... And I agree - TRNC, Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, and Somaliland should never have been on here, in my opinion. -Justin (koavf), talk 21:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand your position, Justin (koavf).
So is it finally obvious for the opponents, that part of a sovereign state cannot be sovereign state itself, or shall we continue discussion?
Why can't a de jure part of a sovereign state be de facto sovereign? It is very well explained in the sovereignty article. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 19:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Because if you claim that some part of Moldova, for example, is a sovereign state, this automatically means that you don't recognize Moldova as a sovereign state within it's borders, which are recognized internationally.
And could you please explain - have we reached the consensus or not? I agree with the page's structure right now. You have said you also agree with it. If so, there is no sense to argue. If you don't agree with the current page structure, then lets continue discussion and then we have no consensus. So which of these two is right??
Why would calling a part of Moldova sovereign exclude recognition of Moldovan sovereignty? Not every sovereign state has 100% control over its territory, that's just a reality of life. A country that is 100% de jure sovereign can be 0% de facto sovereign. Look at Kosovo, which is part of Serbia but was governed by the international community. Or look at Iraqi Kurdistan, which was part of Saddam's Iraq, but was governed by the international community. Saddam was de jure sovereign in Iraq, but he had no physical power there. The Serbian government holds legal sovereignty over Kosovo, but the everyday government is run by the UN.
There is still something to discuss. That is not so much this article, or the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is your behaviour. You continued to remove Abkhazia and South Ossetia, despite being reverted again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. You should have stopped after two or three reverts and brought it to talk page, instead of continuing to remove Abkhazia and South Ossetia while ranting on the talk page. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 20:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Look, I'm tired of proving simple things to you. This page structure is agreed and I won't say anything else about it. By the way, there is no Kosovo in the list, for some reason.
Now about me. First of all, I didn't "rant" on the talk page. Watch your tongue. I layed out my arguments, and other editors agreed with them. I did that edits, because the page contained false information. Now it's correct, then it was not. And I am not only one, who thinks so.
Many lists on wikipedia are incomplete, see Category:Incomplete lists. So it happens. That's no reason to look for reasons why this list might not be complete.
Yes, you did rant on the talk pages. You ranted about vandalism from others, you even ranted about Hitler. That's the only thing you laid out, and noone agreed with it. John Kenney came with a proposal that you agreed with, while koavf's position ("I'm all for excluding the de facto states" and "TRNC, Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, and Somaliland should never have been on here, in my opinion") was so broad that it coincidentally happened to cover your narrow position ("Abkhazia and South Ossetia shouldn't be on here") as well. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 20:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, "ranting" is what you are doing right now:) I have written on another page already: I am finally tired of your lies. I have NEVER mentioned Hitler. And you say, it's the only thing, I have laid out?:) Well, I won't reply anything to this. Everyone, who reads this page will judje for himslef:)

You've mentioned 1933 in conjunction with Nazism. Now who would that be about? Perhaps a Nazi who was appointed chancellor on January 30th, 1933?
You've accused me of lying often enough. It's time to prove it, or retract it. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 21:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mention Hitler and I wasn't talking about him at all. You are the first one who mentions him here. I mentioned Nazism as an example of an old theory from the pre-WW2 world, when trying to say that not all theories from that past world are relevant today.
Yes, you have lied right now when accusing me of "ranting about Hitler". And you have been liing for the whole day, when writing everywhere, that I was the only person who was saying something against the established consensus. Yes, this is an obvious lie and you have repeated it dozen of times today.
Your denial of the Hitler-reference is too absurd to mention, so I won't. You were and are the only person with your particular position concerning Abkhazia and South Ossetia. That position is the quintessence of the dispute we're currently involved in, not simply going against established consensus. Who has supported you in this? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

An absurd is your words about "ranting about Hitler". The current page version corresponds to my opinion and thats what I was asking for. If you don't understand it, it's your problem. Oh yes, you told Howcheng (you probably thought I wouldn't see it), that I was using sockpuppets. Another dirty lie. Never in my life I have heard so much slander about me in one single day!

Small nuance: I said you were probably using either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. But to be sure, I'm in the process of writing a request for CheckUser. If that turns out that these are all different (so no sockpuppets) and unrelated (so no meatpuppets) users, I will immediately take back what I said and apologize. But until then, I stand by what I said. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So you should first use this request for CheckUser, and then decide, whether to make an accusation or not. The only non-establshed editor on this page was Irakly81, which is absolutely not related to me, which you will find out from the request for CheckUser. Instead, you first made an accusation (even though saying "probably"), and only now are writing a request for CheckUser.

I should do no such thing. RfCU is not the first step in sockpuppetry, and it isn't the only way to go. Even if the RfCU doesn't find you guilty of it, it doesn't automatically clear you. There is more proof for sockpuppetry than simply CheckUser.
I don't think I've gone so far as to accuse you of anything, although I readily admit to having made some straight-forward observations. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Ok, I believe the version as of January 31 is acceptable. The consensus seems to be reached and I hope, the structure of the page will not be chaged any more.

Just wanted to state that I agree with everything Aecis said in the last... five or so edits. —Nightstallion (?) 21:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Nice to read this debate, but we have done this before and it was concluded that entities like Transnistria should be included as a de facto sovereign state (see also the intro of the article before this discussion). This does not mean any recognition, but just a result of the fact that Moldova has no control over Transnistria. Wikipedia is not an organization giving official recognition to anything.
It does not make any sense to restart this discussion. Electionworld 07:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree 100%. —Nightstallion (?) 08:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the current version separatist regions are also listed as sovereign states. But they are separated and shown as Unrecognized (together with the Partially Recognized states). This shows the difference which exists between separatist regions and sovereign states, yet it shows their current de facto independance. That's why this is a compromise.

This article is confusing to read/digest - formatting must be improved

I see from the previous discussion why this list has now been separated into two major sections. That's fine -- if I was Chinese, Georgian, Moldovan, etc, I'd probably agree that a separate list is needed for the "grey" ones. But now the article is very difficult to navigate because the table of contents lists A-Z instead of indicating that there are 2 sections. I looked for Taiwan for a good 5 minutes under both T and C before I realised it wasn't there. Then did a search on the page to discover it in a separate section at the bottom.

I recommend at the very least to bring back the table of contents. Donama 01:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

i reverted the split. it makes no sense to list coutries as "partially recognized" or "recognized" when we dont state what we mean by these terms. Are we to list Israel under that section too because most Islamic countries refuse to recognize its existence? --Jiang 04:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The state of the article as of 00:12, 7 February 2006 was satisfactory. I don’t understand why the reached compromise should be destroyed. As far as the better formatting I agree that a better list of contents will help the matter. Irakliy81 05:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The sense is that separatist regions are not to be listed as independent states. I realise, that Taiwan is not separatist region, it falls under "Partially recognized states". So lets establish the criteria of Recognized and Unrecognized state and then decide, which entity should be in which part of the list. Parts of sovereign countries are not to be in one section with really sovereign countries. Taiwan is different from Transnistria or South Ossetia, so in your place I would work on establishing of criteria of a recognized state which would include Taiwan (I think that should be so). But including separatist regions into the list of sovereign states is intolerable.

Nightstallion, stop сhanging the compromised version silently. If you have something to say, say it here. Pirveli 09:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted what appeared to be vandalism to me; a red-linked user removing Abkhazia and South Ossetia just automatically led me to rollback. Sorry for this mistake. I'm content with the way the list is presented now (UN members and other states) and was not trying to change the way the list works. (See WP:AGF. ;)) Something needs to be done about the TOC, though, I agree. —Nightstallion (?) 11:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To Pirveli and others: please improve the layout (I wish I had time) because it looks like it was agreed to the idea, but the implementation s*cks so you need to fix it if you want to keep it. Simple enough, I think. Just fix it (instead of making unneeded discussions) and everyone should be happy. Renata 12:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then nothing to argue about. I'm afraid I'm not enough experienced in Wikipedia technologies yet, so it would be better if one of the more experienced editors changed the lay-out (TOC). Pirveli 12:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, put it this way: placing Taiwan using the current version can be viewed as equivalent to the political agenda of the United States in how it places its country lists [4] and [5] Therefore this could be easily seen as a POV even if the current version was a coincidence. Open almanacs, look at dictionaries, and look at other non-governmental Encyclopedias. They don't do such politically charged distinctions about countries as the wikipedia does. Taiwan is listed in the country list of these non-govermental sources without distinction or discrimination in hiearchy except for it's order in a alphabetical list. We should drop the hiearchy in the list of sovereign states and places everything in alphabetical order. We can of course, put footnotes for anything that people have issues with. Allentchang 00:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is incorrect to merge all “de facto” independent entities into one list. Such a list creates confusion by equating internationally recognized countries (i.e. Spain, France) with constituent parts of other countries (i.e. Abkazia, Transnisteria). Footnotes don’t help either. Most people usually never pay attention to them and thus are left with the impression that Abkhazia is just as much of a country as France is. I think categorization greatly helps to resolve this issue without detracting from the content. There are internationally recognized states (UN Members + Vatican); there are unrecognized states with no diplomatic relationships with any of the recognized states; and there are also states that fit neither category and are recognized by some but not others. The current state of the article captures that very nicely (although a better TOC is still needed), does not create any false information (after all Taiwan is a state with limited recognition), and presents the reader with better organized information. Irakliy81 22:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't agree with the new format. First, it places too much emphasis and importance on the existence of diplomatic relations. Second, separating the states here into tiers on the basis of diplomatic recognition creates a hierarchy that plainly suggest POV.

We want this list to be useful and accessible. Donama's comment above suggests that this list has become less useful and accessible in the interests of making explicit some information that was already explicit enough in the original form. In addition to footnotes, we have italicized (rather than bolded) certain entries - how is that not explicit enough? Separating the list under criteria that is neither very relevant information nor salient knowledge is absolutely no help to Wikipedia's readers. --Jiang 08:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that in a perfect world where everything is either black or white one list would be the best way to convey the information. However, there is no clarity in the real world and the current state of the article is a result of lack of clear-cut borders. For example: in my opinion neither Abkazhia nor South Ossetia should be in this list in the first place. The list supposed to be of “de jure” and “de facto” independent states, but let’s take Abkhazia and look at it more closely. That it is not “de jure” independent is obvious. So, it must be “de facto” independent to be included in the list. If independence from Georiga is implied than yes, it is “de facto” independent from Georgia. Yet, Abkhazia is very much a dependent of Russia. The degree to which Abkhazia is independent from Russia is less than many of autonomous regions (i.e. Tatarstan) inside Russia, but those regions do not appear in this list. If you ask me Abkhazia and South Ossetia are by no stretch of imagination “Sovereign States”. They are Georgian territories occupied by Russian military. Now, if anyone can tell me why a constituent part of one country occupied by another country is considered to be a “Sovereign State” I would greatly appreciate it. Yet, I understand that it’s my POV and I accept that there are other POV on the matter out there. Thus I think a compromise is the best solution. What is unacceptable is promoting Russian political agenda and listing integral parts of Georgia in the same list with France, Germany, United States and other truly sovereign states. Irakliy81 18:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In the world there are no clear cut borders, but this new formatting makes it seem so. The new formatting suggests that states can be neatly categorized into "recognized" and "unrecognized" when in reality it is not so simple. We have clearly listed the criteria for inclusion. If Abkazhia nor South Ossetia are neither de facto nor de jure independent, then they do not belong. If enough evidence is provided here so that consensus is achieved for their exclusion, then they should not be listed. But the listing of Abkazhia nor South Ossetia is not reason alone to make this article so confusing, heirarchical, and inaccessible.--Jiang 03:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, here are some facts about Abkhazia. All Abkhazian’s have Russian citizenship and don’t need visas to travel to Russia. All Russian citizens can freely enter Abkhazia as if it was just another region of Russia. This is at the time when Russia requires visas for all Georgian citizens and recognizes Abkhazia as part of Georgia (a little inconsistent, don’t you think?). Almost entire Georgian population (about 45% of total population) was expelled from Abkhazia with active support of Russian military during the war of 1992-1993. After the war was over, the same Russian soldiers who fought against Georgian army transformed themselves into a “peacekeeping force” that in reality is Russian occupation force. Since 1993 more than 2,000 ethnic Georgians were killed by Abkhazian militants in the very region the peacekeeping forces are supposed to be monitoring. Moreover, these “peacekeeping” forces do everything possible to prevent Georgian refugees from return to their homes. The only reason why these forces are still referred to as “peacekeeping” is because Georgian government does not risk an open confrontation with Russia. Now, about Abkhazian independence. So called Abkhazian government is under direct control of Moscow. Abkhazian “president” travels to Moscow for “consultations” with Russian officials more often than any other president of Russian autonomous regions. During the last elections of Abkhazian president Russian officials practically campaigned for one of the presidential candidates. When that did not produce the desired result Russia went as far as threatening Abkhazia with military force and sealing the border until the president who suited Russia was elected. (Imagine president of the United States telling residents of California who to elect as a governor, and when Californians choose someone else telling them that a military force is going to be used unless someone who the president approves of is elected in the re-election). So by no stretch of imagination is Abkhazia an independent entity. In reality it is completely controlled by Russian to a much greater degree than most of autonomous regions inside Russia. De jure Abkhazia is a part of Georgia; de facto it is a part of Russia so I don’t understand why it is considered a separate country or a sovereign state – it is Georgian territory occupied by Russian military. Irakliy81 09:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

How about this: when I have time away from work, let me find the list of states/countries found in all sorts of third party almancas, atlas, enyclopedias, children's dictionaries etc. I will present my sources here on the message board and you can verify these third party sources on how they display their lists and we can use those lists as a type of guideline. It won't be easy for me because I no longer live in an English language country. But again, I really want to say is that the introduction talks about the political status of several states and the footnotes also say similar stuff. Therefore, it is totally unncessary to create a hierarchy in the list because we have plenty of information about the list in the introduction and the footnotes. And the entry saying "See below for Taiwan" is exactly want the CIA website used to do in its earlier version of its list of states (See CIA-text based country listing). On the old CIA books as well as the old version of the CIA website, it said "See Taiwan under Zimbabre." And we're doing the same thing here, which could be viewed by many as advocating the CIA's POV in organizing lists even if you might argue otherwise. Allentchang 03:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If Taiwan corresponds to the criterion of a sovereign state (which is possibly true, because it's a part of a country divided by civil war - just like North and South Koreas) we should add Taiwan to the list. Besides, Taiwan is recognized by many states. But deciding Taiwan issue is not a reason for adding the regions, which have absolutely nothing to do with sovereign state's definition. Pirveli 09:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Our list contains footnotes about things. The introduction itself mentions about Taiwan recognized by ~20 states and with de facto international relations with others. Isn't that enough rather than to put Taiwan in the weird list hiearchy that we are using right now? Here's what I found so far: Third party sources that contain Taiwan as a country/state without making a big deal about its recognition http://www.infoplease.com/countries.html http://www.bartleby.com/65/ta/Taiwan.html http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/ The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2000; 1/1/1999 http://www.wordsmyth.net : Taiwan: a country that includes this and several other islands; Republic of China http://www.bartleby.com/59/15/taiwan.html http://www.atlapedia.com/online/country_index.htm http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/ lists Taiwan http://www.geohive.com/cd/index.php Webster's New World Children's Dictionary: Taiwan is an island off the southeast coast of China. On the island is a country called the Republic of China.

Third party sources that does otherwise American herritage says that it is the seat of the Republic of China, but says nothing else Encarta would advocate view presented by the Wikipedia's list of soveriegn states About.com till 2005 listed Taiwan as part of the list of 193 states in the world and said that it would consider Taiwan a state untill it was officially absorbed by China. However, in 2006, it reversed its decision. Keep in mind that it would seem only one person is responsible for the list.

All I'm saying is that we have information about Taiwan's political status in the footnote as well as the introduction. There is no need to further over do this by placing Taiwan in a weird hiearchy on the list. Would an atlas found at Barnes and Noble do such a thing in its list of states/countries. The answer is no. Allentchang 16:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The only thing about which the argument is being continued - is including Taiwan. Nobody argues for including the separatist regions. So these two issues (taiwan and the separatist regions) should be separated. Pirveli 11:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Please stop changing the list without any explanation on the discussion board. The arguments listed here may be enough for adding Taiwan to the list of sovereign states, but NOBODY has said anything about the territories, controlled by the criminals. Pirveli 17:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have provided my reasons above for removing all artificial categories. No one has bothered to counter those reason. Even if you believe only Taiwan should mixed in with the UN recognized states, that is no reason to mass revert my edits without providing due reason. I clarified some explanations, fixed the toc, and incorporated the link to list of countries. No reason has been given for reverting those, and no counterarguments have been presented to my arguments above re removing the categories.--Jiang 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

To Jiang: Read the long discussion above and you will sea a lot of arguments for not including of the separatist regions into the list of sovereign states.
It is you, who is making mass reverts. You have provided reasons for including Taiwan, so if nobody has any objections, you can add Taiwan to the list, but you should stop making mass reverts of the compromised version. The only issue, over which there is no compromise - is Taiwan. So add, Taiwan, but don't make a nonesense of the list by adding teritories, which are not sovereign states. Pirveli 09:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not mass revert. Notice the major changes between these two versions: [6]. I made numerous changes to the description that have never appeared in the article before. If you would like to restore those "criminal" countries into a separate section, please do so. I cannot do so because I do not support it, but if you do so, I will not object. Dont destroy the improvements ive made to the lead. Thanks. --Jiang 09:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You see, what you claim to be "improvements" contradict to the compromised version of the list. Again - read the discussion above. You have argued for adding Taiwan, and got no objections, but you have NO arguments for adding separatist regions, so you have no right to add them. Pirveli 10:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of having the internationally unrecognised countries in the main list. We can't ignore that these territorities do rule themselves, and are therefore souvereign in a practical way. The thing is also that there are a lot of border cases. If you want to include Taiwan, because it is recognised by some 20 countries, keep in mind that not a single institute or country, including Taiwan itself, claims that Taiwan is an independant country. Rather, 'Taiwan' is officially just one of two governments representing China. If you put Taiwan apart from the 'de facto 6' because of actually being recognised by some countries, keep in mind that so is Northern Cyprus (by Turkey). You would also need to set apart UN official countries that a significant amount of countries does not recognise, such as Israel.

Additionally, it would really be a joke for Somalia to somehow be recognised as more souvereign than Somaliland. If countries are being set apart, than Somalia should also be. The excuse for an interim government cannot conceal that this country lacks most of its de facto souvereignity.

Lastly, if the main list were only to consist of UN official members, then what's the bloody point of this page existing side by side with the UN members list and the list of unrecognised countries?

Everything is quite simple - In a VERY long discussion above really many arguments have been listed, why the separatist regions should not be in the list of sovereign states. Finally, the compromise was reached.
Then, somebody comes, says that it's something wrong with Taiwan and breakes the WHOLE compromised version, adds the indefinite regions instead of adding Taiwan only (as he has brought arguments just for Taiwan, nothing more).
This is not a normal situation. If you want a version with Taiwan, you shoud create it and post it here. You can't add and remove whatever you want without listing arguments, ok? Pirveli 08:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not mass revert the article. It is best not to revert, but if you are to revert at all. just revert only the versions you find that lack consensus. There is no reason given to revert the various improvements made to the lead section. In the discussion above, many arguments have been made on why the unreocognized states should not have their own section. Please respond to these arguments. If you feel these arguments have already been addressed, repeat them here and c/p if you like. There is simply no consensus here. --Jiang 09:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Regretfully you simply don't pay attention to the arguments I bring.
As I have already said, "You see, what you claim to be "improvements" contradict to the compromised version of the list. Again - read the discussion above. You have argued for adding Taiwan, and got no objections, but you have NO arguments for adding separatist regions, so you have no right to add them. Pirveli 10:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)" Pirveli 09:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no "compromise version". Just because some discussion has occurred and some editors once though some edits were a good idea (but never came back to defend their original positions once these edits were challenged) does not mean that articles cannot be edited mercilessly or redistributed at will later on. Wikipedia is built on continual improvements. There is no consensus, but even if there were, I would still be able to edit. And does modifying the TOC or clarfying the criteria violate this so-called "consensus"?

If I am truly committing the grave error you accuse me of committing, why are there not ten other users showing up and reverting me on sight? If an edit is truly bad, you would not have to break the 3RR to fight against it. Everyone would be here helping you. But it looks like youre alone... --Jiang 09:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Jiang, you are adding entities, for which you have brought no arguments. That is not good. Please, give arguments for every entity, you have added to the previously compromised version of the List without any explanation. Explain, why have you added Transnistria, Abkhazia and all the others. Otherwise, your mass reverts of that version are not eligible. Pirveli 09:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

My argument repeated: We want this list to be useful and accessible. Donama's comment above suggests that this list has become less useful and accessible in the interests of making explicit some information that was already explicit enough in the original form. In addition to footnotes, we have italicized (rather than bolded) certain entries - how is that not explicit enough? Separating the list under criteria that is neither very relevant information nor salient knowledge is absolutely no help to Wikipedia's readers.

If you want to provide a reason for removing Transnistria and Abkhazia, provide a reason here and if it is a good reason I wont object. If you would like to cite the reasons given by Irakliy81, I wont object either. But there is no reason for reverting my changes to the lead. --Jiang 09:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Irakliy81, me and others have brought a lot of reasons, why the separatist regions are not to be listed together with the sovereign states.
Ok, then (taking into consideration your arguments about TOC) here should be 2 or 3 three definite sections for the countries: 1.The Sovereign states (probably including Taiwan, Palestine and Western Sahara as recognized by dozens of states?); 2. The unrecognized states.
And probably it's reasonable to add Section 3 for the dependent territories right under the first two sections. What do you think about it? Pirveli 10:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This list is designed to be less inclusive than the list of countries, so I don't see the need to add seperate sections that would end up duplicating that list. A list of dependencies already exists at list of dependent territories, in addition to the inclusion of dependencies at list of countries. As for unrecognized states whose sovereignty is deemed to be suspect (i.e., not fully meeting the criteria for inclusion), I think they can either be 1) simply excluded with the link to List of unrecognized countries in the criteria section improved to note their exclusion or 2) included with an improved and expanded footnote explaining how they dont quite meet the criteria (but are close enough to meeting them to warrant a mention here).--Jiang

Here's another perspective on things . . . . Over the weekend, I thought about the list of the books of the Bible and the fact such a list is extremely controversial and is dependent on one's religious denomination. I decided to look at the Books of the Bible page to see what they do. They do not divide the books of the Bible into categories recognized or not recognized or marginally recognized by the various faiths and denominations. They use footnotes to indicate that so and so doesn't think it so. Allentchang 14:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the example with Bible is not adequate here. As it was already said, listing of the uncontrolled territories together with sovereign states, like USA, South Korea, etc is an absurd. There is one more question, how about Western Papua, and the Burmese (Myanmar) territories of the Kachin, Karen, Wa, Shan and other peoples? They are absolutely de facto independant from the Burmese government. Many territories in Northern Caucasus (not only in Chechnya) are not controlled by Russia. Pakistani government has absolutly no control over the territory of Waziristan. Do you think that all these territories (and many more which I haven't mentioned) are more controlled by the central governments than South Ossetia for example? If you do, you are really wrong. I don't think we must have double standards here. Ok, if all the uncontrolled regions are in the list of countries, as Jiang has justly mentioned, it's no need to create a section for "unrecognized countries". If someone thinks, there should be such a section with separatist regions included, I won't object. What I say, is that Sovereign States must be in a separate list from the uncontrolled territories. Now, I'm removing the separatist regions from the List. Pirveli 14:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am adding the separatist regions back as there is no consensus to remove them. If someone removes the separatist regions, they should also update the header that says that this list consists of 201 entries of which 6 are 6 defacto countries. It is confusing if the header does not match the data. ((Shocktm | Talk | Contributions)) 15:27,

26 that's seem to turn to a complete mess. The states are the areas recognised as states by other nations indeed. That's the rules of the international play. If one lists self-declared states, separatistic/seccecionist regions, the areas of a state captured by another state - this certainly brings one to a mess. Any rural community may declare it's an independent state, and what then, add it to a list? I understand there are mini-states like Vatican or Andorra, but their existence is coined by the surrounding nations and history, and their existence does not contradict with the regional interest balance. Please, please - if you wish to list somewhere in Wikipedia the areas like "Pridnestove", "N Cyprus Republic", or "South Ossetia", or "Bask Country", create something like a section "dispute and conflict areas of the World". Otherwise the entire idea of Wikipedia is down - Ridibo

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Archive_2&oldid=1136952363"