Please avoid the perception of tracing my recent edits in country articles. You have specifically separated Etymology sections from History main section in country articles after the recent edits that followed the MOS History. From an outsider position your edits could be interpreted as a personal edit war. Please avoid this impression in the future. Because my edits have a solid base in the MOS Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries (concerning the Etymology part) and yours haven´t, I have to ask you stop this. Italiano111 (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RFC on the matter, stick to it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not concerning the Etymology recommendation, as this was already a recommendation before my recent edits on this Project Page. Italiano111 (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does concern it. Etymology is point 3 in the RFC. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, you or any other editor have NOT made a relevant proposal for changing the MOS Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries in terms of positioning of the Etymology part. Am I wrong ? I´m afraid I´m right. Italiano111 (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. I made a proposal in the RFC. "...it should be a separate header" Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither you nor any other editor have made a proposal for changing the recommended position of Etymology (preferably in History) in the relevant talk page here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries ! There is NO evidence not even an edit made on Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries that indicates a change from the established recommendation. This was the last comment concerning this issue here on your talk page. I expect any serious argumentation to happen on the specific talk pages. Italiano111 (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal at the appropriate page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the enthusiasm but shouldn't we wait for the peer review to focus our efforts. No objection to the changes, its just a review requires a stable article. Wee Curry Monster talk

Well, I personally feel we could've done more before a PR, but no problem. I am always happy to avoid work! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis. I see that you moved the section about "boggy plains" out of flora and fauna into the main part of the section. I appear to have reversed your action - my rationale being that I want to replace that sentence with something more encyclopeadic - flora and fauna is not my forte, so I need to do some reading up (unless you are happy to do it). Martinvl (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'm happy to handle Flora and Fauna, and think I can build up a good section from information on sources that are already in the article. Perhaps you can do something better with that sentence, maybe somehow include it in a paragraph about the landscape? I'll do a test breaking of it now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Further to "(Undid revision 445147142 by Arrivisto (talk) Mention of the CoE is extremely WP:UNDUE, it is barely mentioned even on the pages of its members) : I had not intended this entry to be biased, but rather a neutral statement that although the IoM was not a member of the CoE, nevertheless the CoE's European Convention of Human Rights can be made to apply via the "supervision" of the UK. I think this information should be on the IoM page, but I am content (pro tem) to be advised on a "less biased" way of doing it.

(Also: "it is barely mentioned even on the pages of its members" I don't understand this! Whose members? ) Arrivisto (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the message. Sorry to be unclear. I reverted the addition of the section not because of bias, but because I didn't think it deserved that much detail and its own level four subsection. The Council of Europe is not really mentioned on the pages of its members (which is what I meant by "its members", sorry), most just say it is a member, if nothing else. It seems strange then to mention it on the page of somewhere that is not a member. However, the information that the UK can intervene does seem relevant. Can you source the birching? If you include that it'd be far more relevant. I'd suggest not creating a new subsection though, the page is overloaded as it is. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got that draft done today. It's at Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria. Nightw 11:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly man, this revert is a bit uncalled for. I'll start a discussion for this trivial edit, but I will not bother to revert if anyone objects. Tachfin (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Will respond there in a minute. Nightw 17:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how can we reach a consensus to end this?

Collins432 (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should open up a discussion on Talk:Kenya where you state your change and why you think it would be beneficial. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really familiar with this user talk thing, but I just don't understand why you want to use the outdated orthographic map that only a fraction of the African country articles use. This map is pretty much shows whatever the other one does, and is more appealing to the eye.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collins432 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should really place this at Talk:Kenya, but basically the map is completely accurate and actually more up to date than the AU one, having South Sudan. Even without, a map showing Kenya's position in the world is much better than one showing it just in Africa. Showing it in the AU also gives the AU a relevance it simply doesn't have, making it seem as important as the EU. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you vandalizing the member states of the Commonwealth of Nations?  Buaidh  18:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all members of the Commonwealth of Nations are Commonwealth realms. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but if you find an error, please don't revert all changes.  Buaidh  15:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why have you reverted here [1] when the source clearly states that NK didn't recognize anyone de jure? Why do you think "de facto recognition" or "de jure recognition" are "oxymoron"? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and such "nuances" matter. Please see this from Oxford University Professor Talmon, an international law expert: "Distinctions between “de facto recognition,” “diplomatic recognition” and “de jure recognition” may be traced back to the secession of the Spanish provinces in South America in early 19th century." [2] That much is obvious from a Wikipedia article on Diplomatic recognition. But wait, here's more:

• Professor of International Law at the University of Leicester Malcolm Shaw [3]
• Case Western Reserve University School of Law professor Boleslaw Adam Boczek [4]
• United States Naval War College and UC Berkeley Professor Hans Kelsen, who "is considered one of the preeminent jurists of the 20th century and has been highly influential among scholars of jurisprudence and public law" [5]
• Dr. Mohammed Bedjaoui [6]
• judge Nurullah Yamali [7]
• Indian jurist S. K. Verma [8]

As you can see, it's not an "oxymoron". Kindly revert back your edit or provide a better justification that would trump professors Talmon, Shaw, Boczek, Kelsen, Bedjaoui and all other international law experts. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is one, even if it has come into use. I don't doubt that it exists as a phrase, just that it shouldn't be used without very good sourcing. But your source? Seriously? A thread on a forum? No. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, there is no thread from any forum above - these are all reliable, verifiable articles from top experts. Secondly, the reference I gave in the article comment section [9] was of an article from Arminfo news agency [10], that was simply archived on a forum.[11] I did not use it in bibliography, only in the comment section to show that the information in the article was incorrect. If you'd checked, you would have found the original article on its news agency website. Thirdly, the incorrect information that I changed - and you've restored - relies on a article from a forum site [12] - why aren't you removing and reverting that? It would be better if you carefully study the sources provided, and then revert yourself as you've obviously been in haste when you made a revert. Thank you. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page about where the link was from: it doesn't especially matter (The note is a request not to randomly rename the section), but if you're really curious and didn't want to go through the linked here page, I'm using "Etymology of X" redirects to include the etymology sections of some national pages in ((main)) hatnotes on the List of country-name etymologies article without having to include ugly hatchmarks or uglier ((dablink)) headers. The hope is that information and sources can be more easily checked and shared across pages. Right now, that's it, but some articles could also use them for cross-comparison of etymologies (all the *walhaz cognates come to mind). — LlywelynII 14:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sry for being coy on my talk page. I just figured I'd be done here soon enough it wouldn't matter. Obviously not! [& congrats on yr kitten.] — LlywelynII 14:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the clarification. I commend you on your mission. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chipmunkdavis, thanks for keeping an eye on the Germany article. I believe, you are sometimes a little too strict with citation requirements, but it's still greatly appreciated to keep the article in good shape. Do you have a suggestion regarding the last two "citation needed" issues?

• "constituent states" - number of Kreise and kreisfreie Städte. Apparently this number will and does change (due to mergers, splits, promotion of new cities). Would it help to just say "approximately 440" and link to the central German statistics site?
• "list of musicians" - i doubt, we could find an easy source for this list. Maybe just remove the "have influenced" part and plainly state, that those musicians are popular as common knowledge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GermanJoe (talk • contribs) 08:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm much less strict than many, in my experience. Especially some of the PR, GAN, and FAC old timers. But that's policy I suppose. I only wish it was easier to improve it from the current state, but never mind now. Perhaps there is some sort of list or information in German instead? I'd suggest listing the city states, and then summarising the divisions of others, rather than trying to explain it all in a long sentence. Don't give a total number if it's not feasible, and considering how even without the 3 citystates German states have different subdivisions it may even be slightly misleading to lump them all into one number.

As for lists, sourcing is a major problem with them. Sometimes you can get a source for a list, but even then one should say what the source is in the article text. The problem with common knowledge is it isn't common, and even with sourced lists, you have IPs and user coming in and adding or removing due to their personal opinions. Perhaps with popular music there is a list for best selling artists which can be used? The list of classical composers isn't sourced either unfortunately. I usually try to replace lists with a general statement, because in the end they're just too much trouble. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thank for the advice, this is exactly what i wanted to do but i can't find any link to upload new version of the file, can you help me please. Kingroyos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

There is no one to revert the People's Republic of China link, it has now redirected to China. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Using the name "China" instead of the "People's Republic of China" and the countries of East Asia template has still linked with "People's Republic of China" article. The only thing is China is now the primary topic of "PRC". Thank you. ApprenticeFan ^work 02:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry, I was confused. Cheers, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping to provide a cite, I did have one ready in a sandpit. Sorry if I was being slightly petty but N2e irritates me when he does drive by tagging and then comes back and deletes information it would take very little time to find a cite for himself. Thats all he does. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd understand if the fact was not immediately obvious and not easy to find, but for something that can be found on the first page of a google search, it's a bit off. I think the spirit of WP:BEFORE should be applied, although obviously it's on a much smaller scale. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is he tags facts that are immediately obvious (often they're already cited by a reference) and its not always obvious what he disputes. He has a bad habit of adding a ((cn)) tag at the end of huge paragraphs and you've no idea what facts he is disputing. Anyway vented enough already, thanks for your patience. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WP:Summary Style is new to me. I answer after reading it. Now there are technical difficulties to open it. Watti Renew (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis, please have patience with me. I have the document now. You have points in your arguments, but in my opinion the articles have always opportunities for further development. Thus, one should not get in love with the existing verson but be ready for changes and improvement. Watti Renew (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do, but if those changes are contested one must seek consensus on the talkpage or through other methods of WP:DR. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to weigh in at the discussion in Talk:India on some 40 odd images? I know that's a lot, but a simple Yes/No would be adequate. Of course, if you choose to comment at more length, it would be even better. The India page is now the second most-viewed country page (after the US) and the 15th page overall, so having a set of high quality representative pictures becomes even more imperative. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will give it a close look in a bit, from a brief glance it seems sound. Impressive stats on page views. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's confusing about describing Canada as a dominion during that period? Canada's status as a dominion is universally accepted... as the article is written now, it makes it appear as though Canada became independent in 1867 and ignores the fact that it held the same status as the other dominions (which all noted to have been such) up until the Statute of Westminster. There's no ambiguity in Canada's status between 1867 and 1931, it was exactly the same as that of Australia between 1901 and 1942 with the primary difference being that Canada didn't have to pass an act to adopt the Statute of Westminster as it automatically applied to every dominion but Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland. This is reflected in every article on the matter, from dominion to Statute of Westminster to Balfour Declaration of 1926 to British Empire itself. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be confusing as Canada is still sometimes called a Dominion. In addition, unlike in the Australia/New Zealand tables, there is no "Event Ending Political Entity" column, which is necessary to make it clearer. However, the lack of this is not anyone's immediate fault, so I've self-reverted. Next time, please discuss a single article content change on the article talk page rather than a user talk page, so other's can see. Cheers, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry for the late reply. somehow missed your post and didnt see it till now). As for the official documents - instruments of accession signed by states that joined pakistan use that term. Gbooks search for the term "I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of Pakistan" throws up some examples. For example, here is the accession document for Kalat (princely state) and that of Junagadh--Sodabottle (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to give the historical perspective, I consider it important to maintain the link Portuguese Congo. This is why I reverted your edit where the link was eliminated. If you think the matter has to be discussed, please do so. -- Aflis (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Congo is just a redirect to Cabinda Province. Absolutely useless. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have the intention to write a page on Portuguese Congo and shall then re-introduce the link. -- Aflis (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good idea. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you are interested in Wikipedia country articles, and I think a new list I made might be of use to you. Best, - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be writing here so that I won't need to load your talk page with new threads below. I've generally completed the formatting of sources for Bulgaria, hopefully the text is a bit easier to read now too, and I've made some other minor edits. I added an image of my own, and the MiG-29 image is now available although I'm not sure if I can include it if it hasn't received OTRS confirmation. Could you give the article a full read ? Any advice is appreciated ! Oh, and one other thing - would it be a problem if some book citations are missing an ISBN ? I noticed it as a remark on FA candidate procedures, but some books either do not have an ISBN number or I am not able to find it. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a close look through your sources, and from what I can see, you need to do a lot of tedious ref cleanup if you want to try and pass an FAC. I'll bullet point suggestions. For future reference, all reference numbers taken from this revision.

• You're missing access dates on a few references, such as 1, 39, 40, 45, 120, 121, 124, 215, 254 (not a complete list). Some of these don't have publishers. The minimum all web citations need is a url, title, publisher, and accessdate.
• When dealing with publishers, don't put something like "Tourism.government.bg" unless they actually title themselves using a url style name. The publisher there (ref 169) should be "Bulgarian Tourism Agency" (unless they have a different official english title).
• Replace references to sites such as "Spainexchange.com" and "Kwintessential.co.uk" if you can. Those are not well thought of by the FAC reviewers.
• Remember to italicise all newspapers etc. You've done a very good job at this, and I've only found one that wasn't, Xinhua in ref 142 (also probably best to delink it since you don't link other newspapers).
• Similarly, remember to place the (in Bulgarian) note for all Bulgarian refs. Again this is good, but do a double check for ones like 184.
• Some of your other references are incomplete. What is Jiriček, p.295? Place the full book citation somewhere. I suggest scrapping the Further reading section and turning it into a list of books you've used a shorter reference formatting for above.
• Standardise ISBN formatting, make them all have dashes or none have dashes. Ref 15 has spaces, which I haven't seen before.

I don't think a picture should be used without OTRS confirmation, so add it in when OTRS comes, the current picture won't hold back a FAC. Other images look well placed and staggered. I'm not actually sure how much not having an ISBN will affect it. While you really should have it when it's there, if there is none out there to find, and some other way of proving it exists is provided (such as a link) either in the ref or when questioned as FAC, I think it won't be too much of an issue. I'll read over the article again soon. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please single out what you disagree? I've made some other changes apart from what you pointed out in the edit summary, and you've reverted all changes that I've made. Thanks. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimarkup sometimes makes it very hard to se all changes made. If you want to put in some changes that are uncontroversial, don't mix them with controversial ones. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can I tell what are controversial to you when I edit? 119.237.156.46 (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I spelled out a specific objection in my last edit summary. If you gave a clearer edit summary listing changes, it would be easier for me to leave something if I revert. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid that people would say the my selection of the 12 images for India was geographically biased, which they did, even though my choices reflected the bias in Indian FPs. Fearing more such complaints, and the process dragging on, I've added 24 new images to the Demographics set, making a complete set of 36 representing every state and religion in India, with the exception of native Andaman Island(er)s and Indian Jews, both, sadly, dying communities. If you'd like to mozy on over to the page and offer comments, they will certainly be appreciated. The new images are not FPs, since the first set of 12 had exhausted all the India FPs; however, they are still good hi-res images. I had to go through some 10 thousand images to find them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I'm that one guy that was edit warring you a while back in the Kenya article :). Anyway, I wanted to request a huge favor from you. Since I am not very familiar with using every function of Wikipedia, I was hoping that you could petition 'Semi-Protection' for the article? I have noticed that it is experiencing increased levels of vandalism and I just needed your help on this. Please.

Thanks! collins432 (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for temporary semi for the article at WP:RfPP, as you're right, it's receiving an unusual amount of negative IP activity. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Twas declined. We'll just have to keep reverting if anything else happens. You can always report again later or ask again and I can do it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the try :). Although, I don't understand why it's such a big deal if it's protected or not. I think it would be ideal if all users had to be autoconfirmed to edit anything.. collins432 (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a vote going on to decide the final images to be selected in the Demographics Image Rotation. Some new images were added to the pool. Please carefully see the new proposals and vote for your favorite images that best represent the people of India.

Please vote here.

Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on page. You are NOT looking at the facts there. Look at the page of sovereign European states. Turkey is on the list!! That's the Wikipedia article. I might be break an 3RR rule, but at the end, administrators will agree with me that the facts have been layed out and that if Wikipedia's article on Europe includes, Turkey, than it should be listed under Turkey. Look at [13] and see that you're wrong. The definition here is set by Wikipedia's definition of Europe, nit by the UN. Not reverting anything as I have nothing to revert.--XLR8TION (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, on October 7th you edited the artcle [14] and no made NO changes to it by not removing Turkey from the list. Hence you acknowledge back on ctober 7th that Turkey is part of Europe. Why aren't you recognizing it now? Check edit history and realize the editorial hypocrisy you're showing today.--XLR8TION (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate. Trying to get this solved here. Nightw 06:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to know that XLR8TION is conducting a wide-ranging campaign of listing Turkey under Europe. (No need to respond to me about this.) Esoglou (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are NOT looking at the facts there. Look at the page of sovereign European states. Turkey is on the list!! That's the Wikipedia article. I might be break an 3RR rule, but at the end, administrators will agree with me that the facts have been layed out and that if Wikipedia's article on Europe includes, Turkey, than it should be listed under Turkey. Look at [15] and see that you're wrong. The definition here is set by Wikipedia's definition of Europe, nit by the UN. Not reverting anything as I have nothing to revert.--XLR8TION (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, on October 7th you edited the article [16] and no made NO changes to it by not removing Turkey from the list. Hence you acknowledge back on October 7th that Turkey is part of Europe. Why aren't you recognizing it now? Check edit history and realize the editorial hypocrisy you're showing today.--XLR8TION (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide me an honest answer why you edited this article ---> [17] on October 7th and did not remove Turkey nor Cyprus from the list? Why not? The fact is that you're wrong. Cyrpus is not Middle East! Alaska is near Russia. DOes that make it part of Asia? NO! Cyprus has had a Greek culture for centuries. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ASIA!

With regards to Turkey, Turkey is defined by the Wikipedia article on Europe as being part of that continent. Wikipedia articles on continents are NOT determined by the United Nations. The definition of Europe has remained unchanged for centuries. Turkey is part of Europe. Istanbul is in Europe. The Bosphurus is the mouth to the Black Sea. Russia's territory stretches out to Russia but that doesn't make Russia an Asian country. They are not part of ASEAN or any other regional Asian orginization. Take a step back and realize that you're wrong. It's ok to accept a mistake, but please put an end to this ridiculous edit war and accept the facts set forth in the Wikipedia article of Europe.--XLR8TION (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO. I made THIS edit which may be of interest to some. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Did you notice that the couple updated the IMF link and it was supporting their data (though I have no idea how IMF can seriously predict GDP for 2016. Materialscientist (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice the link change, but it doesn't account for the unsourced paragraphs in the Economy section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• rv

Kindly put that back. You probably just need to clear your cache and see Template talk:Navbox#How to implement flatlist?. 13:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Alarbus (talk)

• see MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Flatlist css tweak, too. Alarbus (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Why did you revert that edit? Thanks, Alarbus (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By total accident. My apologies, must have hit rollback in the watchlist. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; and I see others have pretty much restored it. Alarbus (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seeing this problem as well? I reverted some of the formatting changes, but then I saw this on your talk page and thought it was probably just me. Nightw 13:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Navbox#Wrapping issues. Browsing in Incompatibility Mode. Please stop thrashing these templates; they're used by a huge number of others and ya might melt a server.

Also, it's not a formatting change, it's a structural change, made for accessibility reasons. Alarbus (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dots are larger than they previously were with more space on either side, which makes it as a whole longer, but it is wrapping nicely to fit my browser size (I'm using chrome). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the thread the only solution is turning off compatability mode, which I can't do. So... if this is all being done for accessibility reasons, who's accessibility has mine been sacrificed for? Nightw 13:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a button on your toolbar, or enable it in preferences. Or upgrade ;> Know anyone with a visual impairment? WP:ACCESS. Alarbus (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've just pointed me to ACCESS. There's nothing in the talk page or recent edit history about changing template markup or how it affects visually impaired users. Nightw 13:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be obtuse; that's about the general topic. See the other links for the current discussions. Alarbus (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ACCESS#Horizontal lists

Alarbus (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to misunderstand the concept of the policy you're linking to by presuming (incorrectly) that all readers have the freedom to install and run whichever browser they choose. Nightw 14:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume. It's not a policy, it's a guideline; it's been talking about hlists for some time. I know not all can install software on machines they use. If you're going to use IE, use the compatibility button as needed. That backward compatibility mode is for old sites, not this one. Don't seek to retard it. Alarbus (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However you might feel about it, it's undoubtedly used by a lot of readers, who probably won't know what's causing the problem. Nightw 15:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been all sorts of dots used, in all sorts of sizes: • and · are most common. This is now using File:Middot.png, as a background image. This means it's not really in any of the templates, it's just an ornament. User:Edokter has been tweaking the padding, and it's pretty good, now. Alarbus (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for all the orange boxes Chip. Nightw 14:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HI Chipmunkdavis

Saw you reverted the changes I made to the British Empire article. Apologies if I offended the editing mores. I am new to this so still learning! I have started a new section on the artcle talk page so I welcome any comments

regards Freedom1968 Freedom1968 (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on getting rid of the links to outlying islands on Template:United States topic. It'd get rid of a lot of perpetual red links... Nightw 13:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir; Would you please advise why did you undo my edit?

Best Regards --Ibrahim Ghalghay (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the areas you added have any real or recognised independence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. If you think that my wording at Northern Cyprus is preferable to Masri's POV pushing, then would you consider reverting him? Cheers. By the way, I didn't send that smile above, Watti Renew did. I don't know why it was labelled as being sent by "Taivo". Strange. Unless I accidentally clicked on that heart at the top of the page. But then why is it in the middle of Watti Renew's post? Strange. It's not that I don't like you, I don't know you personally, but clicking on a heart for you is a bit much ;) --Taivo (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been a little busy this past week. I've responded on my talk page, and will post more thorough responses to Talk:Republic of China, as well as initiate a move request at Republic of China (1912-1949), in a short while.--Jiang (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Glad to see you and Readin have finally taken the bull by the horns and decided to rename the Taiwan articles. I can see some people are refusing to accept there was consensus, but it seems to me that there was one. If necessary I suggest you ask for an uninvolved admin to help close the renaming discussion (the earlier one) formally. Or indeed a panel of three closing admins. If you like I would be happy to approach a couple. John Smith's (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus in the discussion for a change involving the country article being called Taiwan, but no agreement on the how. An admin could not do much with this, so the thing to do now is to figure out the best way of dealing with all the pages we have. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, friend. Are you busy? I have at last managed to post, at WikiProject Denmark, that question we talked about months ago! Would you be interested in sharing your thoughts? You mentioned that Orange Tuesday had some thoughts also on the subject. Is there anywhere else we can recruit some more involvement? Rennell435 (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you'll get some responses! I certainly didn't. I'll watchlist it, but wait till other's post before saying anything. Good example with France by the way. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When/where did you post? You said you were going to but I didn't know you had already done so... Rennell435 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the same place, a long time ago. You can find it at the bottom of archive two. I think if there's no response here we start a merge request on the Kingdom article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have started a merge request. Well, good job. We'll see if we get a response now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that! I'd like to be proactive so I think if we don't see a response in a week's time, we should be BOLD and do the merge. Rennell435 (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I agree. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got consensus. Could use your ideas though if you're not too busy. Rennell435 (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am letting you know, since it seems you are one of those who supports the moves, that I have created a subpage of my own user so that we can begin to create the proposed articles and give people their own input so we can use this as a test page for the articles, instead of reverting directly on the pages and continuing to discuss them on the talk page. The link is User:Jpech95/taiwan. Thanks! Jpech95 23:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you removed my edit? It better reflects what the sources say and I have tried to talk this through on the talk page, unlike the other editor. No one objected to what I proposed there. BedsBookworm (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talkpage, your edit was far too closely paraphrased. The source said "etc, and appalled by the cost of the campaign", your edit said "etc, appalled by the cost of the campaign", basically a copy paste. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

Just wanted to mention, that though we probably won't see eye-to-eye on Western Sahara, I do appreciated the civil discourse and reasoned debate, which is so often lacking on WP.

Yours, NickCT (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope my comment was clear, even if others don't agree with it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor you are replying to at Talk:China has been blocked on behavioural grounds as being a banned user - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood. Therefore its probably not worth replying ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Česká republika vznikla dne 1.1.1969, Československo se stalo federací protože Národní shromáždění Československé socialistické republiky přijalo ústavní zákon dne 27. října 1968 a vyhlášen byl pod číslem 143/1968 Sb. Takže Česká republika existuje 43 let. Historicky prvním předsedou české vlády, se stal v době od 8. ledna 1969 do 29. září 1969 Ing. Stanislav Rázl. Po zániku federace, se již existující republika osamostatnila, ale datum vzniku je 1.1. 1969.

Czech Republic came into existence on January 1, 1969, Czechoslovakia became a federation because the National Assembly of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic adopted constitutional law of 27 October 1968 and was declared under number 143/1968 Coll. So the Czech Republic there 43 years. Historically, the first Czech Prime Minister, became in time from 8 January 1969 to 29 September 1969 Ing. Stanislav Rázl. After termination of the federation, the republic became independent of existing, but the date of occurrence is 1 January 1969. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.236.5 (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi arab league consider western sahara as part of morocco, please go and see arab league's web site, so don't revert my modification, thank you --41.248.105.212 (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the map you put is not neutral, because it shows western sahara as full independent state, wikipedia is not UN or a political referee, the arab league's opinion and the fact that this territory is controled by morocco and not a no man's land must be taken in consideration...thanks to be neutral...--41.248.105.212 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is a neutral map of morocco, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Morocco_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg, it's used in many articls. When you put western sahara with international borders and in grey color (similar to independent countries) it means that this territory is a full independent state and this is extremely FALSE because the territory is under morccan control regardless international recognitions, I'm inviting you then to be neutral !!! Thank you --41.248.105.212 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

take a look to arab league members map in the arab league website : [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.105.212 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list you where asking about [[19]], it is complete for all modern states and virtually complete for all extinct states the United States has diplomatically recognized (although i know of a couple obscure instances not included).XavierGreen (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see they have two South Sudan entries. Perhaps you should email them about the obscure incidents! CMD (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit. Nobody is doubting that these brands a German. All of them have their own wikipedia articles where the source is given. Do you want me to add a source? Otherwise I will revert your edit.--IIIraute (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did add the sources.--IIIraute (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chip, I see that user Jrobin08 has just reverted a whole load of your edits. He has just been warned on his talkpage about the DR Congo one but not the others, and this is not the first time. Not all his edits are vandalism and sometimes it is not obvious whether they are or not. At the very least, it is clear that he hasn't yet got the hang of editing collaboratively. I and others have raised concerns on his talkpage but he just keeps blanking the page and doesn't reply to the points made. (He is a young schoolboy.) If you are sure he is mistaken about these edits, do you think further action needs to be taken about his behaviour? Can he be mentored? -- Alarics (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's mistaken, and I think there is (currently) a WP:competence issue. Evidence for both on the DR Congo edit summaries. He's definitely not a vandal though, some of his edits have been improvements. I see the classic updating of stats but not knowing about wikipedia's sourcing policies. He's taken into account the messages on the talkpage about emailing, so at least he's reading them. I think there's a good chance he could be mentored, yes. I doubt I'd be a good choice for it though! CMD (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did not get back to you, I had been away. When I read there was no vote I had assumed it was an acclamation, but I didn't think of it as equivalent to an unanimous vote because, to me, it simply meant that no member objected to entry. This could have also included abstentions. That was my line of thinking, but if theres more to the story I'd like to know. I thought at first that if it were made an 'important question' that could limit member states' ability to abstain from voting, but I think this only makes a vote required to be a two-thirds majority, so therefore irrelivent. Again, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Outback the koala (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, didn't affect the discussion. The security council had no vote, noted here. The GA resolution is recorded as passed "without vote" here. However, sources, like reuters and the BBC equate it to a vote. I think if there was any question there would be a vote. CMD (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to vote for my #1 geographic editor on WP, it would be you by a landslide!...We've corresponded before. I've seen good or exceptional edits of yours about a hundred times over the past 6 months. So I'm sure I'm missing something and that you have a good explanation--please fill me in--for your recent changes to the status of Cook Islands and Niue on the various lists of sovereign states....As per your guidelines above, I'll added a note to the discussion page for List of sovereign states DLinth (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly for cleaning up Associated State...I was really struggling with trying to break up that 8-line run-on sentence. DLinth (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment on the talk page. I suggest you respond and/or self-revert, otherwise later today I will be contacting an administrator to help sort it out. You are continuing an edit war that I attempted to end by refusing to bring WP:RS to the discussion and reverting edits that remove inappropriate, unsourced content. That's not how wikipedia works. 174.113.154.168 (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you contact an administrator, you'll be up for as much scrutiny as myself. The aim of discussion on the talkpage is to seek WP:Consensus, not to make a statement and demand you get your way. If you want to expand the conversation, the options are found at WP:Dispute resolution. CMD (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to be scrutinized. After edit warring before I understood the rules, I was notified and stopped. I went to the talk page, and you did not engage in consensus building. You force reverted the unsourced content back into the article while refusing to bring any references to the discussion. Your only suggestion that I should find sources for all other countries, is irrelevant. That's not my responsibility. If this is your decision then I will go ahead and find an admin. 174.113.154.168 (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did engage in consensus building, I discussed on the talkpage. If you find you don't get your way on discussion you do not simply go and reinstate your edit, you seek dispute resolution, as I noted above. CMD (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your discussion was to refuse finding a source, and try to change the subject by demanding that I find sources for other irrelevant things. That's not consensus building. If you have a problem with something else unsourced, by all means go take care of it. I found this error, and it's unsourced. I tried to have a discussion on the talk page and ask people to bring sources if they believe it is correct. Nobody did that, therefore, the incorrect content should be removed. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. It seems you are arguing now in bad faith so I will leave it at this and allow the admin to do their job. Have a wonderful day 174.113.154.168 (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a source. Your request for a source showing that "the Palestine declaration changed the world map" is completely unnecessary, and one which we are unlikely to find for the vast majority of the items on that list. CMD (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chipmunkdavis! Just to clarify the edit history here, because maybe I'm missing something. I saw that Spesh531 moved Cook Islands to the "states row".[20] Then I moved Niue there, because it seemed as a minor omission - since both have the same status it doesn't have any sense each of them to be in a different row. You reverted me (Niue only, which was very odd for the reason stated here). Then the editor who made the initial change came back and corrected the minor omission himself.[21]

Later came DLinth and started moving both CI and Niue to "dependencies row". I reverted his changes. He didn't opened a section on the talk page and utilized only edit summaries to describe his changes - using strange reasons such as "not recog.as indep by UN or 190 of 195 states"[22] what (and who) are those 5 states (195-190) is a mystery, who are the 195 is also a mystery. On top of that the "not recog.as indep by UN" part is wrong (I provided a source in one of my reverts of DLinth[23]) and also not directly related to these edits.

Then you came, reverted to pre-Spesh531 version and asked to discuss pointing at another article. Then I restored the Spesh531 version and asked "CMD, what to discuss? Aren't CI and Niue listed at the article you point to? If they are, then my edit is OK. I think they should be, because that's what sources show. Only if they aren't-then they can be moved to "dependencies". So, are they listed?"[24] You reverted again with "You know it's not that black and white."

But this doesn't answer the question: "Aren't CI and Niue listed at the article you point to?" - if they are, then there is nothing to discuss and the Spesh531 version is both factually-correct (according to sources) and Wikipedia-correct (the same as the other article). If they are listed there why do you revert? Japinderum (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I notified Spesh531 that I mention his edits here[reply]

I reverted Niue only at that time because only the CI had been included on the sovereign states list. Oddness was on the list, and we both know I was very against having only one on the list, but that's what happened. I've taken it back now because you and DLinth are in danger of getting into edit wars on multiple pages. Don't justify it to me, but to them. CMD (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I think DLinth will refrain from changing it if three editors (Spesh531, me and you) revert his change. I have contacted DLinth already, but what I don't get is this - aren't CI and Niue both listed at the article you point to? Because from your revert it looks like they aren't (logic says that if they aren't you wouldn't revert me and would've reverted DLinth instead). Are they or are they not listed? Japinderum (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We both know they are, but they're also in the New Zealand extant. I've been convinced by the long debate that it would be justifiable to move them (and move them I did myself in various pages), but DLinth hasn't, and an edit war isn't productive for anyone. Standard procedure is to go to the pre-war page, which is what I did. It won't be terrible if they don't move for awhile (and it probably would be in line with most other tertiary sources). Once DLinth has been presented with the secondary sources you have, I'm sure agreement can be reached. Also, this nav template is black and white, so I don't have much of an issue due to its use for navigation, but outright saying "the Cook Islands is a sovereign state" in prose, where we can explain, would not be the right thing to do. CMD (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we clarified whether they are listed, because both you and DLinth referred to that list article when removing them. I think it will help if DLinth gets an explanation from a second person (besides me). Also, I agree there's no rush with the template change, but it has to be done, if only for consistency sake. But also, I think your suggestion "discuss at the list page" should've be pointed at DLinth (who makes the changes to the nav template that contradict the list page) instead of me (and the nav template should've been kept in the 'according-to-list' state). I'm sure DLinth will get enough clarifications at the list talk page if he asks about this issue there. Japinderum (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion was directed towards both of you. I am happy to input into a conversation once one starts. CMD (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is now - User_talk:DLinth#Cook_Islands.2C_Niue (about making the nav template comply with the Wikipedia list), Talk:Associated_state#Cook_Islands.2C_Niue (about grammar/ordering changes I propose that don't change the meaning, but it seems DLinth objects those, because he doesn't like the meaning of the current version). Japinderum (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my 12:17, 11 May 2012 comment at Template talk:Oceania topic. Japinderum (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh of-course BE is American for over 100 years. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was away for a week...thanks for holding the fort with Japiderum (others?) who wanted (want?) to include Niue, Cook Is. in lists with no distinction between them and the ~190+ states that have actually declared independence, have fully distinct citizenship status, etc. I'm only an occasional, non-WP-savvy WP editor, but I did add more on that Niue-Cook Is. distinction in reply at the talk page for Associated states just now that I hope will answer his concerns. I appreciate your attention to detail and common sense there, at Niue, with Palestine, at List of Sovereign States, etc., etc. (and your similarly deliberate, practical, well-researched approach with emotion-laden topics (for decades!) such as East Sea (another full page NYT add last week....we see East Sea stuff like that here all the time!)DLinth (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any "etc." (after citizenship preferences, that are also one-way only and don't apply for NZ citizens in CI or Niue). "Declared independence" - what about Canada, Australia and New Zealand? When is their independence day? There are also other similar examples. I checked with Chipmunkdavis above and he confirms that both CI and Niue are included in the List of sovereign states. What distinction do you refer to? They are regular members of the international community, conduct official diplomatic relations with many states and are members of multiple various international organizations and treaties. For example the Cook Islands is full member state of more UN System/Vienna formula organizations (those are UN, ICJ, IAEA and 15 more) than Liechtenstein. Also, CI and Niue are not engaged in a sovereignty dispute and they are not states with limited recognition (unlike Palestine, Cyprus, PRChina, etc).

While for Palestine (and any other of the states with limited recognition) I agree that many edits are emotion-laden - for CI and Niue there is no emotion and no "freedom struggle" or something like that, but clash of the common misconception and mass market clumsy compilated inaccurate lists with efforts to implement what is shown by reliable sources with attention to details. Actually, if there was emotion, freedom struggle, sovereignty and recognition dispute - the attention of the mass market sources would've been pointed there. This isn't the case and that's why we have this Wikipedia clash instead. Japinderum (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a desire for no distinction on either side, but just a disagreement on how to deal with a complex case. There's a conflict here between secondary sources and tertiary ones. We have a lot of sources which show what Japinderum says, that they participate in international organisations, have diplomatic relations, etc. I haven't seen a secondary source which really fleshes out an argument by itself to say "The Cook Islands is a sovereign state" or something similar, but I wouldn't be surprised if one were out there. Most tertiary sources still show them with bracketed (NZ) though. Japinderum is also right that this is more of an academic rather than emotional dispute, which has its upsides and downsides. I think there will have to be a few case by case discussions before any standard presentation can emerge (if indeed it ever can). Also, Japinderum, it would be useful if we had a list of sources making certain points in some location, probably a user subpage, for much easier referencing on all sides and a basis for discussion. Is that doable? CMD (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the place for this chat....CMD caught in the middle....But, nevertheless: Japinderum, my only concern: that CI & Niue not be 1) called "independent" or "fully sovereign" and 2) not be listed with the ~193 independent states in an undifferentiated fashion. That's all.

Overturning that status quo (above) requires a very large burden of proof, in part because there is such a preponderance (~90%+ ) of time-honored sources (and common WP sources) as the World Factbook, Times Atlas(UK) & 90% of other atlases, Nat'l Geographic, the US State Dept. list on line, Webster's Geographic Dictionary, the UN membership list (Switz.'s long exclusion was for totally different reasons), & at least 20 or 30 WP articles including List of sovereign states (where, after over a year of discussion, they are not listed in the "top list" or called independent.) That's a well-established status quo that, I'm afraid, will take a full UN membership or an actual declaration of independence by CI or Niue (which they don't seem to want...they voted against it before.)

As mentioned before, Japinderum, some of these primary or secondary sources insofar as how the NZ govt. or its judges consider CI & Niue are not the "be-all and end-all," as the distinction we need, instead, by definition, is whether CI & Niue are considered independent by the world community at large. (You'll remember other cases such as S. Africa's homelands decades ago where territories were declared "independent states" by the "colonial" power, yet virtually nobody agreed, and they were not included in any lists of independent states by the UN or anyone else at that time.

Until CI and Niue actually declare independence and until they are no longer NZ citizens and until they receive full-level recognition as independent states from more than a tiny percentage of relevant authorities (UN, other states), then there simply isn't a case to be made for listing them as independent states, is there?.....no matter how many judges rulings or proclamations or other secondary sources turn up from NZ or elsewhere.

You are of course correct from those primary and secondary sources that the two are in many administrative ways about as close to full sovereignty as possible; not "dependencies". But not full independence nor full diplomatic, embassy-level recognition by more than a few states (which is different than engaging in a treaty directly with them, as the US has, for ex.)

So perhaps instead we want to change "dependencies" to "others" as the title in the templates....& and list that says "dependency" (most don't.)....Like you, I also tried to get rid of that run-on 8-line sentence in Associate states...see my note there, as you asked me, and I have no problem with your lengthy but much better worded proposed edit on the talk page there except for a few words.DLinth (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CMD - the relevant sources are mostly in the associated state and foreign relations articles, but I assume many additional ones can be found in various previous discussions on the topic. But I think the issue here is in perception and common misconception, not in sourcing.

DLinth, if CI and Niue are not "independent and fully sovereign", then they have no place in the List of sovereign states. CMD confirmed that they were included there after a lengthy discussion, so now the list article conforms to what the sources show. And just to clarify - the states with limited recognition are also "independent and fully sovereign" - the special-ness in their case is not in some "limited independence", "limited sovereignty" or "limited control" - it is in that their status as sovereign states is disputed by other states (not by non-diplomatic lists or Wikipedia editors). CI and Niue are not subject to such dispute. This is a big difference.

"listing along the ~193" - why "~" and not an exact number? Who are those ~193? I assume you refer to the 193 UN members and the Vatican City/Holy See - one of the 3 states non-members of the UN, that aren't subject to a sovereignty dispute. The other two are CI and Niue. Why do you want them somehow excluded? What's so different in them? That Joe writing a list of states on some website, atlas or book didn't care too much to check for obscure small island state, that evolved from limited self-governance into independence without a big flashy independence day? Yes, it's not so important like Australia, Canada or NZ (who did the same), but this is no reason for Wikipedia to be as sloppy as Joe. Actually, if Wikipedians do a good job here, the next time Joe prepares a list or uses one of those nifty Wikipedia maps I see everywhere on the web without acknowledging where they come from - he will list/show CI and Niue without even realizing that. Just as Joe "removes" them right now without realizing that.

Again, the atlases/lists you point to and similar stuff - such arguments that "CI and Niue are not fully independent" should be pointed at the List of sovereign states together with a request to remove CI and Niue. I'm not sure what "fully independent top list" you refer to. The List of sovereign states is ONLY for fully independent states. Top or bottom, doesn't matter. I assume the bottom list is for fully independent sovereign states, that aren't regular members of the international community, because they are involved in a sovereignty dispute with another state. CI and Niue aren't such, but even if they were this doesn't mean that they are less independent. In any case I kindly ask (both CMD and DLinth) - is the List of sovereign states divided into "fully independent" and "not fully independent" or it lists only "fully independent"?

I don't know which vote you refers to when you say "they voted against independence", but I assume that if such vote exists it's far in the past, and that many of the gradual steps in the process resulting in their today independence were taken afterwards.

World community at large, or at least not the Joe-writing-with-unknown-criteria-and-quality, but the official diplomatic community, clearly states that CI and Niue are fully independent. That's confirmed by all relevant parties - NZ, CI, Niue, UN and all states that both of those have diplomatic relations with. Also, I'm not aware of a state or international organization that questions CI or Niue independence or statehood (unlike for Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan, etc) - on the contrary it's quite a common (and undisputed and "no need to discuss" and "natural") practice for CI and Niue to join international organizations and treaties. Those are the real world actions, not some strangely compiled atlas or unofficial list.

What's this with declaring independence? NZ itself hasn't. Many others also haven't. And about percentage - actually we don't have sources showing any state or organization disagreeing with CI and Niue independence. See above.

What few states? Again those 193-190? I said already that there are much more than 3 states that have established diplomatic relations with CI and Niue. I don't know where you come up with that 3. And it's a common practice for small states not to have relations/recognitions with/from everybody else - this doesn't mean somebody objects or disputes their independence.

I think there are two major points of disagreement here:

• Number of diplomatic recognitions/relations. Applying Kosovo and Palestine logic to CI and Niue. As explained above the situations are different. Kosovo/Palestine/Taiwan are in a situation of "big international problem, sovereignty/territorial dispute" transpiring into "by default/if unknown - assume lack of recognition" - here there are plenty of sources with explicit statements for both recognition and objections to recognition. CI and Niue are not in this situation. They are like Tuvalu, Nauru, Bhutan, Monaco, Vatican City and any other small ("mostly irrelevant") state - "by default/if unknown - assume no problem with recognition" - few sources about recognition and relations and none sources about big sovereignty/territorial dispute or recognition problem.
• Discussion about whether CI and Niue are fully independent - apparently this already happened and concluded that they are. That's why they are included in the List of sovereign states article, the appropriate place for such discussion. Bringing arguments against that here (templates, associated state) is unproductive - if you want them removed - please go there. Top, middle or bottom part of that list can not be related to "fully independent" vs. "not fully independent". CMD, please confirm. Japinderum (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I've replied to your above concerns so as not to clutter up CMD's page [|here] Bottom line; this isn't up to one or more WP editors, but instead will require: an actual declaration of independence (not vote against, which we have in force now from the only referendum held there), and/or full UN membership, and/or recognition by a large number, not 3 or 5 independent states. Until then, all major international authorities (Factbook, Nat'l Geographic, Times atlas (UK), atlases from publishers around the world, US State Dept's on line list, Websters on line, every world map I've seen, etc., etc. (and other secondary sources widely used by WP editors) continue to link CI and Niue to NZ, and all continue to NOT list or show them within the world family of 190+ independent states. WP editors in 30+ articles including Niue and Cook Islands have followed suit for a long time, and I suggest will continue to do so until something changes with the UN and/or with the other factors listed above and at the link I provided. DLinth (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. As I explained above - your arguments about "CI and Niue are not independent" can be utilized ONLY to remove them from the list of sovereign states articles. But as CMD confirmed already they are not removed from that article (following a discussion). So, unless your arguments convince editors there to remove these (but I assume those arguments have already been taken into account - and I also explained above what problems in those arguments I see) - please stop reverting edits to the navigation templates and other articles that are consistent with the current status of that article. Japinderum (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A user has expressed concerns that your vote on the above RfC on Talk:Sri Lanka is not genuine. I would appreciate if you could make some clarification to break the current deadlock as the user firmly stands by his opinion. Astronomyinertia (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since he is not ready to drop it, I've taken the issue to the ANI. I don't see any other way to establish the credibility. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 04:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superficial niceness is achieving nothing on that page. I figure it's time to try another approach. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I acted in good faith to restore the comment that you have left at 01:22, 11 March which later disappeared.[25] I thought it was deleted by accident when you restore my comment at 18:43, 10 March [26] (which was removed by 114.229.255.127 [27]). Since Tiderolls questioned about it, could you help clarify whether your comment was deleted intentionally or by accident? Thanks. 202.189.98.134 (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I accept that your action was good faith. I removed it in a general rollback and didn't reinstate it, but I don't particularly care it's there now. For future reference, if you notice a comment that has not affected conversation has been deleted by its writer, it's best to clarify with the writer, like you did here, before taking action. I'll note Tiderolls you were acting in good faith, but you should understand you walk a thin line here, and should undertake extreme caution before touching someone else's edit. I suggest not doing it at all. CMD (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I truly believed that it was a plain accident since you didn't indicate anything in the edit summaries, and therefore thought that it's too minor to clarify with you (until Tiderolls questioned about it). Please accept my apologies.

Regarding HiLo48's comment, I still think that it's more logical to have his comment arranged in the same manner as Eraserhead1's and John Smith's. All three comments are responses to the same piece of comment by Niyaendi. 202.189.98.134 (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. It is common practice to place a new reply to a comment that has already been replied to under the old comment, often with an additional indentation, as otherwise it randomly pops up on the bottom of the thread, forcing editors to trace the indentation up, which is very inexact. CMD (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Agree. That's better than the way HiLo48 did. He's cutting in in the middle with additional indentation, ignoring Eraserhead1's and John Smith's earlier comments. That's making earlier comments difficult to follow. 202.189.98.134 (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the sentence on neighbouring states, the long form is needed or otherwise it is similar to constructions such as "pro-China president of Taiwan", which even supporters of the recent move have derided; this also is not a situation where using "China" instead of PRC won't create any precision issues, such as "China's space programme", or "Kyrgyzstan borders China". Remember this is article text, not article titles. GotR ^Talk 19:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it needed? There is no precision issue, readers will be perfectly clear as to what China refers to. CMD (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly needed more in those last two examples I used. GotR ^Talk 02:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case, but why? CMD (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're a good regular editor in geography articles Chip. Could you keep your eye on Mtheory1 (talk · contribs). He is on a fringe POV campaign to change all references to Iran from Middle East/Western Asia to South Asia. He apparantly is a "scholar" and "must do my duty to spread the CORRECT information" [28] to "FIX THESE PROBLEMS" [29]. Irānshahr (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Great Power → List of great powers by date. --IIIraute (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to Encarta would have been far more convincing, but since that tertiary source qualifies it, I suppose it's fine then. CMD (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other interesting articles: [30] and [31]. --IIIraute (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't access the Telegraph one, but the other one is indeed interesting. Evidently, any course of action taken by someone in power is wrong! CMD (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. If you like, try: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8898945/Germany-The-reluctant-superpower.html or google the given keywords. --IIIraute (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that link works for some odd reason. Thanks again, CMD (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Ahmed Shah Khan is not a pretender he's the heir apparent to the throne of Afghanistan and is currently living in America, so is Prince Niaz Ali Khan (Spitfire202 10:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC))

As heir apparent, he's a pretender. See Pretender. CMD (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: I find your intervention on the talk page of this article very helpful: "blatant POV" is exactly what has been in evidence there, in two opposite directions. However, you have now deleted a portion of the text which contained a source (Atmore) which I think should be maintained. Is there any reason why you think it should not? -- Aflis (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The portion of text I removed was done simply as part of my revert of Ackees's edits, which were simply terrible, and basically said the same thing that was already there but with a nicer, whitewashed, cooperative Kongo Kingdom and a horrid evil Portugal. The only part of their edit which added something was the "thus they began a policy of disrupting the social order of the Kongo Kingdom", but taken with the major POV this user has and the fact they so readily change information to fit their POV gives me doubt as to that information's neutrality, especially since they sources this to 550 pages of a book. 550, for a statement which should take one. If say they gave more information about the source (cite templates perhaps), including a quote if it's offline, then perhaps there's something to add. CMD (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chipmunkdavis, I got confused and said Cyprus instead of Country. This was a Lapsus L. I did not do anything wrong nor ridiculous by replacing Country with RoC, given the state of affairs on the island of Cyprus. I consider your labeling my edit or whatever act or attitude (I know, it is not the Lapsus) as "ridiculous" and announcing it to the WP community in an edit summary is a rude behaviour. I wanted you know that. Sorry for disturbing you and all the best, --E4024 (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chipmunkdavis,

I requested a change in the article about "Bahrain" stating:

Please change "Bahrain is a Constitutional monarchy" to "Bahrain is an absolute monarchy which claims to be a constitutional monarchy".

I provided just a sampling below of the hundreds of sources which agree with this classification.

Sources: http://adonis49.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/bahrain-western-pr-firms-to-the-rescue-of-this-absolute-monarchy/ http://socialistworker.org/2011/05/11/brutal-face-of-bahrains-monarchy http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/bahrain-demonstrators-repressed.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/world/middleeast/18voices.html http://www.enritimes.com/countries/bahrain.aspx http://guides.library.cornell.edu/content.php?pid=259276&sid=2163172 http://bahrainipolitics.blogspot.com/2012/01/bahrains-war-of-attrition.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/world/middleeast/21bahrain.html http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/8304-turmoil-in-the-middle-east-bahrains-revolution http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50527 http://www.FIXURL_liveleak.com/view?i=610_1300114588 http://wspus.org/2011/02/bahrain-resists/ etc., etc., etc. Clioveritas (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You responded by stating:

Not done. Many of those sources aren't reliable, and we have sources like the factbook noting it is a constitutional monarchy. CMD (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

May I inquire as to which--other than the CIA World Factbook--sources are considered reliable by you?

regards,

Clioveritas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clioveritas (talk • contribs) 02:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy is found at WP:Reliable sources. This means, for example, that basically all wordpress and blogspots are immediately out. CMD (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chipmunkdavis,

Could you please stop reverting my edits in which I changed the wrong links to Dutch Guiana to either Suriname (Dutch colony) or Suriname (Kingdom of the Netherlands)? I created both Suriname (Dutch colony) and Suriname (Kingdom of the Netherlands) to end the confusion once and for all; despite common misconception, the Dutch colony which is now the independent country of Suriname, was never known officially as Dutch Guiana. The name Dutch Guiana only became prominent on maps etc. after the United Kingdom united Berbice, Essequibo, and Demerara to British Guiana in 1831. Even maps that do refer to "Dutch Guiana", as an analogy to British Guiana and French Guiana say something like "Suriname, or, Dutch Guiana", like this one for example. From 1683 until 1795, the colony was governed by the Society of Suriname and never known by the name of Dutch Guiana. And from the moment the Dutch state took control of the colony in 1795, until the moment Suriname became a country within the Kingdom in 1954, the colony was referred to in official documents as "Suriname", not as "Dutch Guiana". The governor was always known as the Governor of Suriname, never as the Governor of Dutch Guiana. Best, Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. you should read the article Dutch Guiana. The term Dutch Guiana is a geographical term which not only refers to Suriname, but also to Berbice, Pomeroon, Essequibo, Demerara, and Cayenne, which were separate jurisdictions!. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was never officially Dutch Guiana. Dutch Guiana is an English phrase, whereas the actual colony was Dutch. All Dutch writing and sources have no bearing on what it was ever called in English. And I have read that unsourced article. I then looked through other, non-wikipedia sources, which equate them. I don't know the details of how Dutch administration changed and shifted throughout time, but the English term for the colony between British Guiana and French Guiana seems to be Dutch Guiana. CMD (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"but the English term for the colony between British Guiana and French Guiana seems to be Dutch Guiana": simply not true. You say on your user page: "This user recognizes that even if 300,000,000 people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake". This is just an example of that. People assume that because Britain named its colony British Guiana, and France still names it French Guiana, the Dutch name must be Dutch Guiana. It's just not true, not in Dutch sources, neither in English sources. If you still don't believe me: the official name of the Anglo-Dutch treaty on the emigration of Hindoestanen to Suriname is named Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands, relative to the Emigration of Labourers from India to the Dutch Colony of Surinam; it's on the site of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Please complain to them if you think they worded the treaty wrong back in 1870... Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Things can have more than one name. For all the sources you show which call it Surinam, or Suriname, others will call it Dutch Guiana. All of the names are easily found via google. CMD (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the British government prefers Surinam though (which may indeed be better than Suriname, which is actually Dutch, I'll change my articles accordingly). It remains a mistery to me why you insist on directing people who read about the abolition of slavery in 1863 in the article "Netherlands" to Dutch Guiana instead of Suriname (Dutch colony)... The latter article is far more relevant, don't you think? If not, please explain why. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The latter article is about 3 hours old and seems to be based on promoting a clear distinction between the term "Dutch Guiana" and the colony which evolved into modern Suriname that doesn't exist as a clear distinction in sources. CMD (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The latter article is about 3 hours old"... duh: I just created it!. There was no article about the colony yet. There was an article about Berbice, about Essequibo (colony), and even about Pomeroon (colony) (all part of Dutch Guiana), but not yet one about Surinam (Dutch colony), only one about Suriname, the independent state. That's why I started to change the wrong redirects to Dutch Guiana after I created Surinam (Dutch colony) and Suriname (Kingdom of the Netherlands). Until you began frustrating my efforts... Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"seems to be based on promoting a clear distinction between the term "Dutch Guiana" and the colony which evolved into modern Suriname", not at all, the term "Dutch Guiana" isn't even mentioned in either Surinam (Dutch colony) or Suriname (Kingdom of the Netherlands). The sole reason I created these articles is the fact that they didn't yet exist (the article Dutch Guiana was never about the Colony of Surinam, but rather about the whole bunch of Dutch colonies in the Guianas). The vast majority of articles on the colonial history of Suriname linked to Suriname like this: [[History of Suriname|Suriname]] (example), only a small minority of articles linked to Dutch Guiana for the Colony of Suriname.

May I ask you how you think articles like Johan van Scharphuizen and Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck should link to the colony which evolved into modern Suriname? If that would be Dutch Guiana, that seems very odd and historically incorrect to me. It would imply Johan van Scharphuizen and Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck were also Governors of Berbice and Essequibo (colony), which they clearly were not (and to say this once more: these articles, nor any articles about the colony of the Society of Suriname ever refer to the colony as Dutch Guiana). The term "Dutch Guiana" originates from after the British take-over of Berbice, Essequibo, and Demerara, in 1814 after which the British united these colonies named them British Guiana.

I don't dispute "Dutch Guiana" or "Netherlands Guiana" was sometimes used for the colony of Suriname (the FIFA code for Suriname (Kingdom of the Netherlands) seems to be NGY), but that doesn't mean the article should be named that way (let there be no doubt: in official contexts, international treaties etc., always the term Surinam(e) was used). The Netherlands itself, for example, was for a long time referred to as Holland in semi-official context (e.g. the IOC code for the Netherlands was HOL between 1968 and 1988), but since Holland is a pars pro toto (similar to referring to the United Kingdom as "England"), we don't use that on this Wikipedia, not even for the period in which Holland was arguably more used than the Netherlands.Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "the term "Dutch Guiana" isn't even mentioned in either Surinam (Dutch colony) or Suriname (Kingdom of the Netherlands)" is a rather poor argument considering that they are articles which you wrote. There are no sources on Dutch Guiana to back up the current text there saying it was a region. On the other hand, part of the article was dedicated to the Surinam colony. It had an infobox attesting this, until you removed it. It doesn't matter when the term Dutch Guiana originated, only that it is now used to refer to colonial Suriname. From all the sources I've seen, the best course of action seems to be a merger of your new Surinam (Dutch colony) into Dutch Guiana, and otherwise rewriting it to conform with external sources. CMD (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you seriously want Johan van Scharphuizen's and Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck's articles say that they were governors of Dutch Guiana? How does that make sense when there are governors of Berbice and Essequibo at the same time Van Scharphuizen and Van Aerssen van Sommeldijck were governors of Suriname (installed by the Society of Suriname!). Using Dutch Guiana might make some sense for the 19th and 20th centuries, when the term was actually used in a unofficial and semi-official way for the colony of Suriname, but not for the 17th and 18th centuries, in which Suriname was just one of many Dutch colonies in the Guianas (and in that period, the term Dutch Guiana was used to refer to all these colonies collectively, see Jan Jacob Hartsinck (1770) for this:

Het Nederlands Guiana word verdeeld in de Colonie van Essequebo, waar onder de Rivier Bouweron, of Poumeron en verdere onderhoorige Rivieren en Districten behooren; mitzgaders de Colonie en Rivier Demerary; welke Colonien thans bestierd worden door de Westindische Compagnie ter Kamer Zeeland: de Colonie de Berbice, die door byzondere Directeuren van zekere Maatschappy, volgens het hen verleende Octroy, wordt geregeerd. En de Colonie van Suriname, behoorende voor één derde deel aan de Westindische Compagnie, één derde aan de Stad van Amsterdam, en één derde deel aan het Huis van Aarssen van Sommelsdyk, allen echter onder de Oppermagt van de Algemeene Staaten der Vereenigde Nederlanden.

Thus, saying that Johan van Scharphuizen was a governor of Dutch Guiana is just plain incorrect. Furthermore, I have seen no English-language international treaty in which the Colony of Surinam was referred to as Dutch Guiana. Not a single one. All talk about the Colony of Surinam. To clarify things, I have written Dutch_Guiana#Dutch_Guiana_vs._Suriname (sourced). I hope you can finally agree that Surinam (Dutch colony) is a better description of the colony than Dutch Guiana. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, article titles and the terminology used isn't based on what things were called in the past (although this deserves mention), but what they are called contemporarily, in the English language. The source you provide above is both historical and not in English, so it's irrelevant to the English discussion of the word. Also, official terms do not determine article titles. They can be used, but their being official is not part of usage consideration (Wikipedia:Official names). Thus international treaties don't determine article titles, and also have less weight on modern terminology due to their being historical.

Dutch_Guiana#Dutch_Guiana_vs._Suriname is not well sourced. The first sentence is sort of sourced, although whether treaties provide official names is disputable. Everything after that appears to be your own analysis of the terms usage, with the third source actually being misleading, as 1) it uses Nederlands Guiana, not Dutch Guiana, and 2) is in Dutch, and therefore doesn't support any sort of statement on the English usage of the word.

On the other hand, here's a dictionary, Encyclopaedia, historical account, and modern paper that equate Surinam and Dutch Guiana. The Britannica article on Paramaribo even notes that the city was once known as Dutch Guiana, implying the name applied to the initial settlement before spreading to the entire colony. CMD (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

with the third source actually being misleading, as 1) it uses Nederlands Guiana, not Dutch Guiana, and 2) is in Dutch, and therefore doesn't support any sort of statement on the English usage of the word.: sigh... the adjective "Nederlands" in the Dutch language means "Dutch", the Dutch term for "Dutch Guiana" is "Nederlands Guiana", the Dutch language itself is called "Nederlands". I seriously doubt you know what you are talking about. The Britannica article about Paramaribo stating it was once known as Dutch Guiana says it all really... these encyclopedias also contain errors, this is obviously one of them. It makes absolutely no sense that Paramaribo itself was once called Dutch Guiana.

I never disputed that Dutch Guiana is used to refer to colonial Surinam, I only contend that Dutch Guiana is a confusing term and that Surinam (Dutch colony) is a better term, especially since that term was used in official English-language texts of the day (please name me one treaty which refers to the colony as Dutch Guiana!). Referring to the colony as Surinam is not uncommon, the only English language historical map of the colony on Wikimedia Commons says A map of the Colony of Surinam.

You refuse to answer my question. Do you seriously want Johan van Scharphuizen's and Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck's articles say that they were governors of Dutch Guiana? How is that factually correct. Could you please explain that to me? Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you want the article Society of Suriname to be renamed Society of Dutch Guiana? Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things: 1) I think the reason why the Colony of Surinam is now often referred to as Dutch Guiana, is because it is an (unhappy) way of describing that it used to be a Dutch colony. What writers actually want to convey with "Suriname, formerly Dutch Guiana" is that the country used to be a Dutch colony. I don't think they actually imply that the colony's (official) name was Dutch Guiana, at least that is not the intent of the sentence. 2) When does Surinam stop being referred to as Dutch Guiana according to you? In 1954, when Suriname became a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, or in 1975, when it became fully independent (I'm just curious)?

I know that Nederlands is Dutch in Dutch. It being Dutch is a rather important point. It is obviously not English. You've somehow also missed the point on official names not being important. It wouldn't mean a thing if I could find a treaty calling the colony Dutch Guiana. You've also missed my point on historical usage of terms being superceded by modern usage. Providing an old map is completely irrelevant to my statements, especially in light of the fact that I have noted that alternative names were used. In addition, your opinion on Britannica is quite irrelevant. It's a WP:Reliable source.

I see no reason why Johan van Scharphuizen's and Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck's articles can't say they were the governor of Dutch Guiana, given that every source I have shown provides that the colony is nowadays referred to as such. It's correct because...they were. The explanation is that the colony is nowadays called Dutch Guiana. See the sources I posted above for example.

Your question on the Society of Suriname is irrelevant. If the society is known as the Society of Suriname in modern sources, then that's what it is known as.

In your two more things you again bring up official names. Again I point out that official names don't determine what things are called. My opinion of when Surinam stops being referred to as Dutch Guiana is of no consequence. What matters is what sources say. The exact political setup of the Netherlands is a rather niche topic, so I haven't read two much about it. From what I have read though, most sources refer to Suriname in that period as Suriname. CMD (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While indeed a name being official does indeed not mean it should be used here, it does help to prove that the name is "consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources". As for Dutch Guiana, it doesn't meet the criterion of being unambiguous and is therefore unsuitable as the title for the article on the Colony of Surinam. I think "Surinam (Dutch colony)" is recognizable to readers, so I prefer that one.

I'm glad you replied on my question about Johan van Scharphuizen and Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck, because this is where you make your big mistake. While the post-1814 colony of Surinam was increasingly referred to as Dutch Guiana, this is not the case for the colony before 1814. English literature about the colony of Suriname before 1814 speaks about the colony of Surinam, both the literature written then and now.

In August, 1799, an expedition was prepared for the reduction of the Dutch settlement of Surinam on the coast of Terra Firma; the squadron, consisting of two ships of the line and five fifties, was under the immediate command of Lord Hugh Seymour; the land-forces under Lieutenant-general Sir Thomas Trigge. -- Edward Pelham Brenton (1823) - The naval history of Great Britain: from the year MDCCLXXXIII to MDCCCXXII, page 447.

Between the English and the Dutch it was determined that each power should keep the conquests in its possession as of 21 May 1667. This confirmed the loss of Surinam to the Dutch in exchange for having New Amsterdam (New York) remain English. With the death of Francis Lord Willoughby there was nobody to defend the interest of British planters. -- Mordehay Arbell (2002) - The Jewish Nation of the Caribbean: The Spanish-Portuguese Jewish Settlements in the Caribbean and the Guianas, page 88

The Dutch possessions in Guiana in 1803 included the four settlements of Surinam, Berbice, Demerara, and Essequibo. -- The English Illustrated Magazine (1891), Volume 8, page 379

While the Dutch Caribbean islands -- St Eustatius, St Martin, Saba, and Curacao -- were small trading colonies, Surinam, on the 'Wild Coast' or Northern littoral of South America, had considerable plantation potential. -- Robin Blackburn (1998) - The Making of New World Slavery: From the Baroque to the Modern, 1492-1800, page 501

What happened in 1814 is that the term Dutch Guiana became coterminous with the Colony of Surinam, whereas before that date, the term applied to four separate Dutch colonies collectively. In short, and I say this very clearly now because you are apparently not getting my point: Dutch Guiana is a perfect term to describe the Colony officially known as Surinam after 1814. However, Dutch Guiana is a factually incorrect term to describe Surinam before 1814, as Dutch Guiana also included Berbice, Essequibo and Demerara at that time. Thus, Dutch Guiana is not a suitable title for the article now known as Surinam (Dutch colony). You can fix this of course by splitting the article into a pre-1814 article and a post-1814 article, but such a split doesn't make too much sense, as the biggest change for the colony itself was when the administration was transfered from the chartered Society of Suriname to the Batavian Republic in 1795.

In addition, your opinion on Britannica is quite irrelevant. Where did I state an opinion on Britannica? I only said Britannica is not free of errors (hardly a controversial statement). Referring to Surinam as formerly Dutch Guiana is not an error, referring to the capital Paramaribo as Dutch Guiana clearly is. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you provide demonstrate your assertion that the colony-pre 1814 is nowadays not referred to as Dutch Guiana. Your statement, "Dutch Guiana is a factually incorrect term to describe Surinam before 1814, as Dutch Guiana also included Berbice, Essequibo and Demerara at that time", hasn't been backed up by any of the sources you have provided. I understand fully what you are trying to say. The problem is it remains unsourced. It is not clearly an error that Paramaribo was once called Dutch Guiana. Paramaribo is where the original settlement was begun. It was once all that made up Surinam. If, say, that area is called Dutch Guiana, it once made up all that was Dutch Guiana.

If you have sources demonstrating a widespread more general use of Dutch Guiana, then there's something to discuss. Perhaps Dutch Guiana could be rewritten to cover what it is defined as with a note that usage was once more expansive. Perhaps this can be done in conjunction with a new page covering Dutch expansion in the Caribbean in general, rather than a somewhat arbitrary division of only looking at the South American coast. Perhaps a convention can be developed where before 1814 it is pipelinked as Surinam, just in case clarity is unsure. So, do you have a contemporary English source that uses "Dutch Guiana" in the expansive way? One source wouldn't show widespread usage, but it would at least show what you're trying to show. CMD (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you provide demonstrate your assertion that only the pre-1814 Colony of Surinam, rather than all Dutch colonies taken together, is nowadays referred to as Dutch Guiana. All your sources say something like "Suriname, formerly Dutch Guiana" without going into details about what that term implies for the situation before. There is actually nothing factually incorrect about stating that the colony of Surinam equals Dutch Guiana, it was the only part of Guiana administered by the Dutch after 1814. Before 1814, that term applied to all Dutch possessions in Guiana. I have already provided sources for that, an English one from the English Illustrated Magazine, and a Dutch one from Hartsinck, but as you keep insisting that only the Colony of Surinam was referred to as Dutch Guina (which none of your sources say), I'll give you some more:

Sources demonstrating that Surinam is part of Dutch Guiana

In time, he felt it his duty to take an active part in the missionary work. After a training period he was dispatched to Surinam, in Dutch Guiana, as the leader of the mission station of the Brethren. -- Øystein Ore (1974) - Niels Henrik Abel: mathematician extraordinary, page 135

The colony of Surinam in Dutch Guiana, extending a hundred miles along the north-east coast of South America, between the fifth and seventh degrees of north latitude, has been known for many years past. -- Thomas Christie (1796) - The Analytical review, or History of literature, domestic and foreign, on an enlarged plan, Vol. 24, page 225

When terms of pacification next took place between the English and the Dutch, the latter resigned rights over the late New Netherlands, and accepted, in exchange, the colony of Surinam in Dutch Guiana. -- François-Xavier Garneau (1866) - History of Canada: from the time of its discovery till the union year 1840-41, Vol. 1, page 225.

Every part of the world where domestic slavery is established, may be occasionally liable to insurrection and disquiet, more especially where the slaves constitute the majority of the inhabitants; but the colony of Surinam, in Dutch Guiana, has been peculiarly unfortunate in this respect. -- John Gabriel Stedman (1963) - Expedition to Surinam: being the narrative of a five years expedition against the revolted Negroes of Surinam in Guiana, on the wild coast of South America, from the year 1772 to 1777, elucidating that country and describing its productions, with an account of Indians of Guiana and Negroes of Guinea, page xi

Sources demonstrating that Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice are part of Dutch Guiana

In 1796 a Colonial Expedition was sent to South America, 1796. where the Dutch settlements of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice in Dutch Guiana peacefully surrendered at the end of April to Captain John Parr of the Malabar. Marcus Robert Phipps Dorman (1902) - A history of the British empire in the nineteenth century, Vol. 1, page 27

As commander, on 5 June, 1795, he obtained a victory over a French division off Porto Rico, and he aided in 1790 in the capture of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice, in Dutch Guiana, of which he became the governor. James Grant Wilson, John Fiske (1888) -- Appleton's Cyclopædia of American Biography, Vol. 4, page 334

Early in 1796 they also took Ceylon, Malacca, Cochin, Trincomalee and the Spice Islands, in the East Indies, from them; and Demerara, Berbice and Essequibo, in Dutch Guiana, in South America, in May, 1796. -- Israel Smith Clare (1893) - The Unrivaled History of the World: Sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, page 1402

Sources demonstrating that Berbice is part of Dutch Guiana

AMSTERDAM, NEW, the seat of government of Berbice, in Dutch Guiana, is situated between the rivers Berbice and Canje, near their confluence, and extends along the banks of the former, about 1,5 miles, with the houses facing the waters. -- (A. Constable and co., 1822) - The Edinburgh gazetteer, or geographical dictionary, page 166

On some occasions, African rebels tried to come to an agreement with the colonial power. In 1763, in the colony of Berbice in Dutch Guiana, enslaved Africans led by Cuffee rebelled for the fifth time in 30 years, seized part of the colony and threatened to take over the whole island. When the Dutch brought reinforcements, the enslaved initially suggested a partition of the island and sought to establish an alliance with the maroon communities in neighbouring Suriname. Understandingslavery.com - Resistance and Rebellion

Sources demonstrating that Demerara is part of Dutch Guiana

He had left France about the year 1782,7 and probably had gone to Demerara in Dutch Guiana, where some members of the Rousselet family lived and where at least one of them was then occupying an official position. -- Robert Howard Lord, John E. Sexton, Edward T. Harrington (1944) - History of the archdiocese of Boston in the various stages of its development, 1604 to 1943, Vol. 1, page 414

When van M died, a few years later, at Demerara, in Dutch Guiana, I learnt that his will contained several clauses in my favour. It merely remained for me to avail myself of them. Ida Saint-Elme (2008) -- Memoirs of a Contemporary: the Reminiscence of of Ida Saint-Elme, page 28

Sources demonstrating that Essequibo is part of Dutch Guiana

Along with the Leewards, several other slave colonies close to Spanish territory lost slaves because of this tolerant policy: Dutch St. Eustatius and the Danish islands of St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix to Puerto Rico; Jamaica to Cuba; South Carolina to Florida; and Essequibo in Dutch Guiana to Orinoco or Spanish Guiana (Venezuela). -- David Barry Gaspar (1993) - Bondmen and Rebels: A Study of Master-Slave Relations in Antigua

A British fleet reduced the settlements of Demerara and Essequibo, in Dutch Guiana, in South America; but a British squadron on its way to attack the Dutch colony at the Cape of Good Hope was defeated off the Cape de Verde Islands by the French fleet under... -- Israel Smith Clare (1893) - The Unrivaled History of the World: Sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, page 1306

I hope you are finally convinced now. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reply? Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as you can see from my contributions I haven't been the most active recently. Lots of stuff to do. Now, although for some reason you've again insisted on using century old sources to somehow support modern usage, a couple of those do show the term is nowadays used for all Dutch colonies there. There's still probably greater usage of Dutch Guiana for the Surinam colony though. In light of this, what do you think of changing Dutch Guiana into a disambiguation for the region and the post-1814 colony, while including a note on the Surinam page that post 1814 it was referred to as Dutch Guiana? That should solve the anachronism issues and direct users to the right pages. CMD (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly fine, I'm quite busy myself as well. I already included the note in the lead of Surinam (Dutch colony) that it was often referred to as Dutch Guiana post-1814, I hope you're fine with that. I'm not too sure about making Dutch Guiana a redirect though. I'm more in favour of rewriting it into a sourced article on the history of Dutch colonization in the Guianas, with perhaps a bit more emphasis in the lead that after 1814, Surinam was the only colony in Dutch Guiana left, making the terms Dutch Guiana and Surinam coterminous.

As for the use of those old sources: sadly, little is written about these plantation colonies these days, making it much harder to find contemporary sources about them (Bondmen and Rebels: A Study of Master-Slave Relations in Antigua (1993) of David Barry Gaspar and Resistance and Rebellion on understandingslavery.com are modern sources, however). The discipline of historiography is dominated by whites, and they are not too inclined to write about plantation colonies that relied on slave labour. Furthermore, Berbice, Essequibo, and Demerara had always been considerable smaller than Surinam, which made them quite obscure to start with, which was further execarbated by the cession of these colonies to the British in 1814. Berbice's claim to fame nowadays seems to solely rely on the 1763 Berbice Slave Uprising. A big event which has only a tiny article on this Wikipedia. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary sources are preferable though, so I'm glad you found the 1993 one. I'm not suggesting a full hard redirect, but disambiguating it to be something like "Dutch Guiana can refer to 1) The colony of Surinam after 1814 2) all Dutch colonies in the Guiana region", with the current article under Dutch Guiana at Dutch Guiana (region) or perhaps even better, Dutch colonisation in the Guianas if that's the focus (was it that separate from other Dutch colonial exploits? I'd imagine prima facie that there was a lot of communication with the ABC islands). CMD (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that. Dutch colonisation in the Guianas would indeed be a better title for the article now named Dutch Guiana, because that term--as we have seen--is quite confusing. The term Dutch Guiana should IMO be mentioned in that article's lead however, as that is the term used to refer to the Dutch possessions in the Guianas (as demonstrated in the sources provided above).

About the Dutch colonies in the Guianas vis-a-vis the other Dutch colonies in the West Indies: they were actually quite different: Curacao was a prominent slave market, more important than Jamaica in the late 17th century. Through the asiento slave trade, Curacao provided the Spanish America with slaves. There were a few plantations on Curacao, but they were relatively unimportant for the island's economy. Aruba was and is completely barren, and was only occupied for a strategic interest. Bonaire was barely settled. This makes these islands quite different from the plantation colonies in the Guianas. Best, Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps exactly how to structure subarticles of Dutch colonisation in the Americas in general is another discussion. Disambiguation page now at Dutch Guiana. I moved the previous entry to Dutch colonisation of the Guianas, and rewrote the lead to flesh out the history slightly. Anything missing? CMD (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is all really good, thanks very much! Now only Dutch colonisation of the Guianas needs a bit of a rewrite, since it is almost completely unsourced. I'll see if I have some time for that in the time coming. Thanks again for your constructive criticism. Best, Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why Azawad is shown on File:Mali (orthographic projection).svg? This is a file for Mali, not for Azawad. This file is used in many Wikipedias, so why they must use this pro-Azawadian image? Why there is no a similar file without Azawad? Moreover in the case of Somalia, the File:Somalia (orthographic projection).svg doesn’t show Somaliland (Somaliland is real non-recognized state, not only postulated as Azawad). Similarly File:Georgia (orthographic projection).svg is without Abkhazia and South Ossetia. So, current File:Mali (orthographic projection).svg is ordinary POV – they should be changed for file with map similar to map used in files for Somalia or Georgia. Aotearoa (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC) PS. In the case of Somalia I’ve found map with Somaliland (with de facto controlled area, not claimed) highlighted (File:Somalia (orthographic projection) highlighted.svg). So, it is possibility to add map of Mali with Azawad, but in different title (not File:Mali (orthographic projection).svg, and with correct borders (i.e. de facto controlled area, not postulated and de facto never controlled one). Aotearoa (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please not add controversial items to the infobox for the Mali-article without at least trying to reach concensus for your edit at the talk page. I cannot see you've been participating there lately. The use of "LocationMali.svg" is used on older editions of the article than "Mali (orthographic projection).svg", so status quo is use of the traditional map. Disrespecting status quo and the current discussions in the article, and still reverting, is pretty much starting an edit war. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted as recently as 30 June. If that's not lately, then you have a weird sense of time. We don't just go back to the oldest possible version. Articles change, move. Consensus changes. This is how an ever-evolving encyclopaedia works. The status quo at the moment is with the orthographic projection. There was a discussion on commons with regards to the colours. You've started a new RfC, which probably should have waited for discussion, but fine, a new RfC. Don't edit war in your change till that's done. CMD (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't recognize you're signature, as it differs from you're user name, my mistake. I didn't start the RfC, I just encourraged it, and I don't think commons is the right place to discuss this issue of what map to use in an article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem having a discussion on the article page. The problem is that an RfC isn't a discussion, and there is not much previous discussion for commentators to read over which there usually should be. CMD (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are on 2RR, please explain why you are removing content which has achieved consensus through the RFC, which you did not even take part in I note, nor have you posted to the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You note completely wrong, I'm the second user, and the first registered one, with a listed comment. Also, your content hasn't achieved consensus. Consensus was to include the information in some way. Your text isn't even on the talkpage. Try not to treat wikipedia as a battleground, and you'll find editing much more enjoyable. CMD (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is on a subpage[32] created by the initiator of the RFC. And yes it has gotten consensus, revert again and you will be reported for edit warring. 10:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

By now you should know edit warring goes both ways. I'm fairly sure that at some point you've encountered WP:BRD. As an aside, it's completely irrelevant as to whether I had participated in the RfC or not, so I don't know why you even brought that up. CMD (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By now you should know BRD is an essay and means nothing. Removing reliably sourced content however is a violation of policy, and I have but 1 revert thus far, so I am not the one edit warring. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bother to explain why you're wrong, but perhaps the fact that you played a major role in putting these articles under discretionary sanctions should give you some pause to think about the way you handle yourself here. CMD (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CMD, can you help me out here with these articles?

Mtheory1 (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to participate in a discussion regarding the articles, but only if everyone else is willing to collaborate to come to a consensus. CMD (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do we go about doing this? I am in the process of preparing a report for a person (who posted on my talk page) that had a great argument that I love, but lacks in a few places. I am a scholar in Iranology. Mtheory1 (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply start a discussion somewhere on an appropriate page, perhaps Talk:Iran or Talk:Geography of Iran, and invite others who have edited on the topic, those who have agreed with you, those who have disagreed with you, and perhaps even some who were neutral. Post a concise statement, with a few sources, and wait for others to respond. If everyone is civil and maintains an open mind, then I'm sure some sort of resolution can be found. For example, there was a debate on whether the Caucasus countries should be introduced as in Europe or in Asia. It was eventually decided to just note they were in the Caucasus. CMD (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just started to do so. Mtheory1 (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CMD,
Would you care to revert San culottes' recent edits to the Syria article? I would, but I'm bound by the 1RR whereas the last edit you made to that article was more than 24 hours ago. Thanks. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're treading around that unsolved issue of the fact that a couple of users can edit war their POV in (their first edit not being a revert), and not respond to discussion, and in the meantime no admins leave an opinion (despite me asking for some on the admin noticeboard), leaving the only possible action to revert them. This of course traps us into the edit war, and some admins are happy enough to sanction everyone regardless. Happily, it's been protected on the status quo ante (as it should be). I look forward to the day when edits where editors revert to reinsert their reverted edit are counted as the second reversion. As it stands, this loophole remains unsolved. CMD (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the second half of this edit summary may be true, but you are the one who is bizarre (and desperate enough) to finally start referring to the ISO all this time. GotR ^Talk 13:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? I referred to the ISO because the codes used in the map template were ISO codes. Why this is such an interesting phenomenon to you I don't understand. CMD (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting phenomenon to me because, AFAIK, since the beginning of this mess Summer 2011, you have never invoked the ISO to justify your edits. GotR ^Talk 14:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as I know, we've never before dealt with ISO codes in a simple bogstandard location template. I merely mentioned them to note you had moved away from a simple, standard, consistent formatting due to your politicisation of anything that has the word "China". CMD (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you could have a look in the talk page before reverting. 2 editors already agree on the changes. If you disagree you should enter the discussion. Masri145 (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at it. The only edit actually discussed is over the phrase ""is part of Northern Cyprus, a state with limited international recognition", and there was no consensus in that discussion. Everything else was tangential. As I'm sure you know by now, consensus isn't a vote. I'll enter discussion when someone actually proposes something to discuss that's not a pointed discussion of E4024's edit summary. CMD (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I owe you an apology. You did revert both E4024's and Helen's edits which caused the problem. I'll set out my proposal much clearer in a new section. Hope to see some comments from you there. Masri145 (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You deleted the anthem file in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and mischaracterized your action as "shifting." Such actions are known as sneaky vandalism per WP:SNEAKY and can be punishable under AA2. Sprutt (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) I didn't delete it, it's still there. I did remove it, but 2) I characterised it perfectly accurately, as that's what I did. 3) You clearly haven't read WP:VANDALISM, I suggest you do. CMD (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You two (you and F&F) are well-meaning editors. I think you have misunderstood my edits on India and reverted it twice. Please help me navigate through this gloomy phase. In your judgement, I trust. As the reverter you did not look closely at my additions and that's what spurred the argument I guess. I simply don't understand why my edits were reverted in the first place. Yes, I know what I could have done but I just don't get what I did wrong. Help me dear! Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 16:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the additions, but the amount of change makes it hard to pull individual edits apart. I made the revert because in your edits a number of pictures were added whose placement fell afoul of WP:MOSIMAGES, and most of the edits seemed to be image edits. You did nothing wrong editing-wise, it's just that some of your edits went against the Manual of Style. The easiest and most productive way out of this is to read over the MOS, and then propose changes on talk. CMD (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, you and I don't disagree that much. Yes, I concede that I could have discussed the additions and it would have been more sensible. I lost my cool because of F&F's officious and domineering behaviour as opposed to politeness which I received from you and I unaffectedly thank you for that.

Forget about the pictures for the time-being (i.e. I will discuss them on the talkpage in detail later), here is what I am talking about now:

Text that I (Mrt) want to add	Sources	remarks
1. The existence of a caste systems has also been observed among other religions of the Indian subcontinent (including Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism)	1. (Barth, Fredrik (1962). E. R. Leach (ed.). Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon, and North-West Pakistan. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-09664-5.) 2. (Martin A. Mills (2002). Identity, Ritual and State in Tibetan Buddhism: The Foundations of Authority in Gelukpa Monasticism. Routledge. pp. 40–41. ISBN 978-0-7007-1470-4.) 3. (Kenneth Ballhatchet (1998). Caste, Class and Catholicism in India 1789-1914. ISBN 978-0-7007-1095-9.) (Elijah Obinna (2012). "Contesting identity: the Osu caste system among Igbo of Nigeria". African Identities. 10 (1): 111–121. doi:10.1080/14725843.2011.614412.)	This was after RegentsPark checked it, and pruned some.
2. Article 17 of Indian Constitution declared any practice of untouchability as illegal. Since 1950, India has enacted and implemented many laws and social initiatives to protect and improve the socio-economic conditions of its Dalit population.	("Constitution of India". Ministry of Law, Government of India. Retrieved 2012. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help))	Important piece of information that shows Indian Government's initiatives to stem the issue of caste-system.
3. The Indian economy is $1.848 trillion by nominal GDP and corollary changes owing to that.	("GDP (current US$) Data in 2011". World Bank. Retrieved 27 August 2012.)	This was partly discussed on the talk of Economy of India.

I hope it helps clear out the some air. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 05:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

F&F can be a bit blunt, but they know what they're talking about. It's good to have a thick skin while editing here. That is a good way to present proposed changes, and I'll look at them on the India talkpage. Air all clear. CMD (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I wish to implement the proposed changes no. 2 and 3. since they are relatively uncontroversial and more objective. But I am going to wait for your approval or comments on my talk page. I have already got the go-ahead from RegentsPark, CorrectKnowledge about these (on different pages). If you want some modification please let me know. And also comment on the second proposal about the largest cities template. This might be useful to address the complaints like these (I also find the deficiency of images/statistics about modern Indian cities a little too striking). Please think about it. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 10:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting any agreement on your talkpage would hold little value as talks on the article page are already ongoing. In most cases, that is where you have to get agreement to make the changes, not other pages. CMD (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come on! Talks on the article page are going on about the case 1 only. Not case 2 & case 3. These are significant, relevant, objective and verifiable pieces of data. What is your objection? Please be clear for once. And the talks are being needlessly elongated by one editor and you know who I am talking about. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 16:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So discuss case 2 and 3 there as well. Talks are sometimes elongated, that's just how wp:consensus must be achieved. CMD (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean discuss it there? I already placed that table which clearly suggests what changes I seek to bring, so far case 2 and case 3 only got opinions in favour of them. It's been there for days. If you disapprove of the edits which I wish to make, I will make them anyway unless, of course, you give me a solid reason why not. You cannot just say discuss it till the end of time. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 06:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that it's being discussed there. The point is there's little use having a separate discussion on my talkpage. CMD (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left aligned the image as you asked in this edit summary. If not I will self-revert. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 08:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't solve the problem, but doesn't make it worse either (on my screen). Good proof of principle that it's doable anyway. I'll probably ask for opinions on talk once the current discussion has wound down. CMD (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have given me quite the welcome to Wikipedia authorship, as you reversed my very first entry! I must, however, disagree with your assessment that Israel "unilaterally annexed" the Golan Heights.

1) Annexation, by definition, is a unilateral political act. The modifier, therefore, strikes me as unnecessary, verging on pejorative.

2) The Golan Heights Law was not a legal annexation of the territory. It was an effective annexation, agreed, hence why I thought de facto was a fair rendering. For the Golan Heights Law simply does not annex the territory into Israel. The entry itself provides proof in two ways: 1) The language of the law does not say that the territory is now part of Israel, but rather extends the Israeli law through it. If they had truly annexed it, why not make it abundantly clear? Can there be a secret annexation? This leads to 2) which is that the Prime Minister at the time denied that it was annexed. Again, if it was a true, proper de jure (as you say) annexation, why deny it? Annexation is a clear, unambiguous act. Israel's action with respect to the Golan Height is politically and legally imperial. It is not, legally speaking, annexation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooshj (talk • contribs) 02:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any edits made in Israel or Palestine areas are going to be truly difficult, so I strongly encourage you to being editing in another area. This will make your editing far more enjoyable!

1) Annexation could be agreed upon. Under the Camp David Accords, Egypt annexed the Sinai, however, it was not a unilateral act. Somewhat analogously, South Sudan's independence was not unilateral, whereas Kosovo's was.

2) Explicitly or not, the Golan Heights were annexed. Whether this was done at the time or as a process, most sources nowadays note its annexation. "De facto" can be seen as unnecessary the same way you saw "unilateral" as unnecessary. I don't know why Israel wouldn't make something abundantly clear (although there are plenty of speculations out there), but it's not a unique situation for them. Their nuclear weapons policy for example, is deliberately opaque. The legal status of the West Bank and Gaza is somewhat analogously unclear. As for someone denying something that later turned out to be true, well, Israel's prime minister wouldn't be the first, nor would they have been the last. There can be somewhat secret annexations. Saudi Arabia and Iraq both annexed part of the neutral zone between them, but noone knew about this for years afterwards. I've not seen a source that defines something as legally "imperial", but I would be very interested to read it. CMD (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:India". Thank you! Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're awaiting your opening comments there. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I'm rather busy, so I'm afraid I don't have the time to participate in DRN. CMD (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [33]. You confirm that you agreed with "the change from recognitions to diplomatic relations." I deliberately didn't touched the NZ extent, because there wasn't agreement about these other changes. But now you repeatedly revert the recognition-to-relations change that nobody disputes.

1. A state in free association with New Zealand, recognized by Japan,^[1] Netherlands^[2] and China.^[3] The Cook Islands is a member of multiple UN agencies with full treaty making capacity.^[4] It shares a head of state with New Zealand as well as having shared citizenship.
2. Cook Islands shares the Realm of New Zealand,^{[Note 1]} one of the Commonwealth realms,^{[Note 2]} with New Zealand and Niue. The Cook Islands has diplomatic relations with 33 partners. They have full treaty-making capacity in the UN, and are members of multiple UN specialized agencies. The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand.

What's the difference between those? The relations change you agrees with. Re-arrangement of the other sentences so that they match other extents. Head of state clarification - previous variant mentions neither the Commonwealth nor the Realm of NZ (not the state of NZ)! Previous variant was the ambiguous "shares a head of state with NZ" - UK shares head of state with NZ. Australia shares head of state with NZ. CI and Niue too. But the point here is different - that all three states - CI, NZ, Niue - share the Queen in the right of NZ the realm - and as a separate issue - that Queen happens is the same as the Queen of other Commonwealth realms such as Australia. Japinderum (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Niue:

• A state in free association with New Zealand, recognized by China.^[5] Niue is a member of multiple UN agencies with full treaty making capacity.^[4] It shares a head of state with New Zealand as well as having shared citizenship.
• Niue shares the Realm of New Zealand,^{[Note 1]} one of the Commonwealth realms,^{[Note 2]} with the Cook Islands and New Zealand. Niue has diplomatic relations with 7 partners. They have full treaty-making capacity in the UN, and are members of multiple UN specialized agencies. Niue is in free association with New Zealand.

What do you disagree with? Japinderum (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're blatantly different. For a start, you've removed explicit mention of shared citizenship and head of state and just replaced it with a note that it's in the "Realm of New Zealand", which gives far less information to the reader. You also move free association, which is a major component of their status, to the end, for some reason. The whole edit is pointedly trying to remove any implication of special status. And if you're still trying to argue that the Queen of the Cook Islands/Niue is the same as the Queen of NZ in the same way that she is the Queen of Australia, you've not understood quite a bit of what others have informed you (to summarise, Australia is a totally separate realm). CMD (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed mention of citizenship, because it's part of the "association" that remains mentioned - other aspects of this association aren't mentioned as aren't mentioned any association aspects for the US associated states. I moved Associated status to the end, because it's not in the column features list (note4 of the article). About "any implication of special status" - the wrong placement of CI Niue, UN-membership bias of the whole article and the glaring self-contradictions I pointed out at Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Archive_10#Lead_contradicts_table - all of these portray the "special status" protruding enough.

Anyway, if that's what bothers you it's easy to add/re-arrange - no reason for you to revert already agreed change (relations) or remove the mention of the realm.

About the Queen and realm - the fact is (and that's what I say) that the Queen in right of NZ (the realm) is head of state of each of three sovereign states in the NZ realm - CI, NZ the state, Niue. The Queen relationship to each of states is equal, it's not like in the case of Tokelau (e.g. even the queen representative there - the administrator - is an official of and appointed by the government of NZ-the-state). The relationship inside the Realm of NZ is similar to that inside the Commonwealth (same Queen/head of state, multiple sovereign states).

So, Australia is different realm from Canada and both are in the Commonwealth. The Realm of NZ is also different and in the Commonwealth. It's special, because it's also shared by multiple states. One of these states, unfortunately, is homonymous to the realm itself - NZ - and that confuses many people who don't properly distinguish between NZ-the-realm and NZ-the-state. The head of state of NZ-the-state is not a head of state of CI or Niue (but it is of Tokelau). And this head of state (in the CI case) is shared not only with NZ-the-state, but also with Niue.

In any case both the Realm of NZ and the Commonwealth should be mentioned and the version you reverts to fails to do so. Japinderum (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US associated states are completely different, as you must know by now. They don't share citizenship, so not also is your argument that the US ones don't show citizenship pointless, but this is a good note as to why it should be mentioned. The Queens relationship with each of those states isn't equal. The governor generals of the CI/Niue report to the Governor General of NZ. It's not at all the same as the realms, because the queen of the Cook Islands is the Queen of New Zealand. Also, any editor is well within their right to revert. Complaining I reverted a small point we agreed on along with a whole bunch of other stuff is pointless when it would be the simplest of things for you to simply make that change by yourself. CMD (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say US associated share citizenship. My argument is that the extents for US ones don't show ANY association details. Their extents simply say "US associated". That's why here it's better to say "NZ associated".

But I also said I don't object adding unnecessary association details such as citizenship - if that is what's needed to close this issue, fine, add it - load the extent with irrelevant stuff - if it's correct I'm not against. a side note - Japan, the only country, which previously objected establishing diplomatic relations with the Cook Islands because of the shared citizenship, already changed it's mind - last year and established diplomatic relations. Also, as you should already know - CI and Niue "shared citizenship" is only unidirectional - Cook Islanders and Niueans are treated as NZ citizens when in NZ or abroad, but NZ citizens aren't treated as Cook Islanders or Niueans when in CI or Niue. The Cook Islands and Niue have established their own nationality and immigration regimes (see Cook Islands nationality and Pacific Constitutions Overview, p.7 - Niue Entry, Residence and Departure Act 1985). The whole citizenship-drum is just a straw to hang on for people supporting the common misconception/stereotype/feeling of CI and Niue being somehow inferior as states.

The Queen relationship with the three states is equal. You can see in the sources at the associated page and other relevant pages that - for matters concerning CI or Niue - the government and prime minister of NZ (the state) are NOT consulted and do NOT advise or influence in any way the queen of NZ (the realm), it's governor-general or it's queen representatives (CI has a separate queen representative - "the Cook Islands Constitution provides for the distinct position of Queen's Representative. This individual is not subordinate to the Governor-General and acts as the local representative of the Queen in right of New Zealand." (here Queen in right of NZ refers to the realm, not the state)). For such matters are consulted instead the PM of CI and the Premier of Niue. Both are appointed entirely independently of any NZ (the state) structures or processes. The PM of NZ (the state) is consulted only for matters concerning the state of NZ. Japinderum (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US association details are far less notable than not having their own citizenship, and not having their own head of state. Those aren't unnecessary details, and neither Cook Islander or Niuen is a citizenship, despite your use of quotation marks. They have as much a separate citizenship as the Galapagos islands do. This isn't a drum to beat, it's a plain and simple fact.

I don't believe I mentioned the PM, so I don't know why you made that long paragraph on it. CMD (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the head of state mechanics, including the PMs, because of your sentence "The governor generals of the CI/Niue report to the Governor General of NZ." (and the ones before and after that).

About the citizenship - as I said - since it's a fact (albeit irrelevant in the light of the association that's encompassing it and is already mentioned) - I don't object mentioning it. I put "shared citizenship" in quotes, because it's almost devoid of content - it's only uni-directional and doesn't correspond to shared nationality or immigration regimes. And I said it's a drum to beat because of it's hollow nature and the fact that it's the last straw for people unable to explain their feeling that CI and Niue are inferior as states.

So, can we converge on the following redaction (as I said above - ordering of the sentences is according to the column features list)?

• Cook Islands shares the Realm of New Zealand,^{[Note 1]} one of the Commonwealth realms,^{[Note 2]} with New Zealand and Niue. The Cook Islands has diplomatic relations with 33 partners. They have full treaty-making capacity in the UN, and are members of multiple UN specialized agencies. The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand, that includes shared citizenship. Japinderum (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The PM is not the head of state, and the governor general does not report to the PM; I don't see the link there at all. Shared citizenship isn't devoid of meaning, nor is there any direction; they are all New Zealand nationals. The Cook Islands and Niue have their own resident statuses, but so do other places in the world, such as Sabah, or the Galapagos Islands. A passport is not a hollow argument.

So no, we can not converge on the following redaction (which should preferably be discussed on the article talkpage rather than here). The associated state status defines the political situation for the CI/Niue; it is this which creates the Realm, not the other way around. Your campaign of trying to belittle the importance of this, while accusing others of picking at straws, isn't likely to go much further. I suggest you drop the WP:stick. CMD (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link is that no CI "governor-general", "queen representative", "head of state" or whatever official is reporting to the state/government of NZ - e.g. no more than Australian head of state/representative is reporting to the state/government of UK. Your sentence "The governor generals of the CI/Niue report to the Governor General of NZ." is incorrect, especially if "NZ" you write about is the state and not the realm - there is only one governor-general, not three, and for matters concerning CI/Niue the state NZ isn't involved at all in his activities as Queen of the realm appointee.

OK, my opinion is that it's hollow, but I don't object mentioning it, so whether you agree with me that it's hollow or not is irrelevant. We both agree to mention it.

Association is a separate issue from the realm, but again - this is irrelevant if we both agree that both should be mentioned.

What do you disagree in the redaction? It mentions the realms, association, citizenship. Do you suggest something to be added/removed/reordered? Japinderum (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The CI queen representative (often referred to as governor-general, like in [34]) reports to the NZ governor-general (that on a technicality he is a representative rather than a GG is surely a point against your argument). The Australian Governor-general reports to no UK representative.

I see no reason to change the order which describes the CI/Niue with associated state at the beginning, which is how the majority of sources I've seen use quite close to the beginning of their introduction to the CI due to its importance (like the link just earlier), replacing it instead with your supposed equal realm (not even mentioned on the linked page, although this is of course just one example, and not equal, as the representative/GG situation shows). CMD (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the CI queen representative is in no way subordinate to any structure or official of the state NZ. For matters concerning the CI the GG of the realm NZ does not deal with any state NZ structures or officials. See NZ-CI JCD of 2001: "3 Head of State: 1. Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State of the Cook Islands is advised exclusively by her Cook Islands Ministers in matters relating to the Cook Islands. 2. In all matters affecting the Realm of New Zealand, of which the Cook Islands and New Zealand are part, there will be close consultation between the Signatories." The GG is GG of the whole realm, not only of one of the three states.

About ordering - we have three sentences: head of state/realm; relations/UN; association/citizenship. Association isn't even listed in the column features list. Also, the most relevant to the column title and features list (on top of it) is the relations/UN sentence.

So, I propose a compromise ordering, where association is moved forward:

• The Cook Islands has diplomatic relations with 33 partners. They have full treaty-making capacity in the UN, and are members of multiple UN specialized agencies. The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand, that includes shared citizenship. The Cook Islands shares the Realm of New Zealand,^{[Note 1]} one of the Commonwealth realms,^{[Note 2]} with New Zealand and Niue. Japinderum (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I never said it did deal with NZ structures (outside the Queen/GG of course). So, you're complaining about association not being in the features list, but then place diplomatic relations, which also isn't there, first. That seems inconsistent. Associated state isn't in the general list because it's a self-defining status, and quite unusual. CMD (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "NZ structures (outside the Queen/GG)" take in mind the NZs homonymous ambiguity - whether your refer to NZ-realm or NZ-state. If after seeing the sources I mention above you now agree that NZ-state officials and structures are not in any way (including trough the head of state/GG) "ruling over" CI, then fine. I bring this issue in relation to your statement "The Queens relationship with each of those states isn't equal. The governor generals of the CI/Niue report to the Governor General of NZ. It's not at all the same as the realms, because the queen of the Cook Islands is the Queen of New Zealand.", which as shown in the sources is incorrect.

The first features list bullet is "the extent to which a state's sovereignty is recognised internationally" - and the only other not-a-state-with-limited-recognition case (Holy See) has in the first sentence the number of diplomatic relations. So, that's consistent. I'm also willing to do compromise and push back the more important head of state/realm sentence, so that the association/citizenship sentence you're interested in gets further ahead. Is this OK? Japinderum (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the sources which made my statement incorrect. The Queen (through the GG) doesn't have another intermediary in the case of New Zealand, whereas there is one for the associated states. The NZ realm and NZ state are not defined and distinct entities, the realm is simply a concept to take into account the unique status of the associated states.

The Vatican opens with a note that its sovereign controller is known as the Holy See, which is a very important note in regards to its status. The same holds for associated states. You keep discussing compromise, but you still haven't given a reason why anything needs to change other than your claim that the CI/Niue aren't different to other states. As you should realise from the massively long process it took to even include those, this is not a viewpoint which has any consensus. CMD (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The realm and the state NZ are different entities, that's clearly stated in the sources: "...the Realm of New Zealand, of which the Cook Islands and New Zealand are part..." - A part is different from the whole. The Queen (and GG) intermediaries are simply location-induced, not status-induced. The Queen resides in London, that's why she has GGs in the other Commonwealth realm. The NZ realm GG resides in Wellington, that's why there is a Queen representative in Avarua. The sources clearly state that "Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State of the Cook Islands is advised exclusively by her Cook Islands Ministers in matters relating to the Cook Islands.". Clearly, no subordination of CI to the state NZ in regards to the head of state (or something else). That's what's incorrect in your three sentences I quoted. You still don't differentiate between NZ state and NZ realm. Your sentences can be accepted as correct only if they refer to NZ realm and not to NZ state.

The unique case of separate sovereignty (Holy See) and statehood (Vatican City) has nothing in common with the state-to-state association arrangements, which are also quite more common (NZ state to CI and Niue, USA to Palau, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, France to Monaco, Switzerland to Liechtenstein, etc.), albeit the treaties are not always called "association".

Regarding whether CI/Niue aren't different to other states. Currently the whole article is POVed since the UN-membership-ultimate-gatekeeper POV camp of editors outmaneuvered the rest. One of their self-contradictions and hypocritical results is that they semi-include states to the list. If the "consensus viewpoint" is that CI/Niue are different from other states and are not fully independent and sovereign, then they have no place in the list (outside the extent of the sovereign state they are supposedly part of). If they are included in the list, then there is no place for such discussion about they being inferior to the other states. As I said before - CI is "much more of a sovereign state" than Monaco (or Liechtenstein) and "even more" than the Holy See. Of course such "ranking" is unproductive - all of those are nominally equal. The article currently is POVed and flawed and doesn't reflect these facts, but the issue we discuss now is different - that of trying to pretend there is a semi-inclusion. To sum it up - "CI/Niue aren't different to other states" isn't a viewpoint without consensus - that's what the article states (by having them included and by them not falling in the "inferiority" categories - limited recognition, sovereignty dispute), regardless of the veil cover-up attempts. And more importantly that's what the sources show.

Why change? The change to relations we both agreed already. The other issue is that the current extent doesn't mention the Commonwealth and the RNZ, e.g. it disregards the CI head of state. Japinderum (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist we can quote verbatim from the source instead of the standard sentence for realm/head of state, but this will make the extent too long and awful looking. Japinderum (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That the associated states have complete self-governance and the ability to legislate whatever on earth they want is quite well established. They have however, not bothered to switch from New Zealands head of state.

As for your other cases of association, they're all very different, the differences between which you could no doubt discover yourself.

There was no outmanoeuvring, there was a massive discussion that lasted over a year. If anyone manoeuvred, they did so at a snails pace. It was quite apparent from the discussion and the viewpoint presented that the CI and Niue were somewhat of a grey area. This was something that everyone who was initially against their inclusion accepted, and something I suggest you accept as well. CMD (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"have complete self-governance" - if by that you mean "are fully independent sovereign states", then OK. If you mean that they are "somehow not fully", then the sources disagree with you. They can even change their constitutions without any consultation or approval from NZ-the-state.

You still don't appear to make the distinction between NZ-the-state and NZ-the-realm. When you say "not bothered to switch from New Zealands head of state" do you refer to NZ-the-state head of state or NZ-the-realm head of state? Sources show the CI head of state is NZ-the-realm head of state and not NZ-the-state head of state.

The other association cases like Monaco, Liechtenstein, Palau, etc. are of course not the same, but in principle very similar to Cook Islands and Niue association - and in some cases it's even deeper and more infringing on the independence, than for CI and Niue.

There was outmaneuvering not in terms of speed, but in content. But this is only remotely relevant to our disagreement here - how to arrange the extent sentences.

So, do you agree with the latest proposal above or you will propose a different sentence for the head of state/RNZ&Commonwealth or you prefer that to be a verbatim quote from the source (thus making it too long and inconsistent with the other extents with realm sentence)? Japinderum (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean what I said, which is coincidentally (or not) what the vast majority of other sources say. Changing their constitution would seem to fall under complete self governance to me. There's a distinction, but it isn't a clear and distinct one. A realm is just terminology for a state which has created its own legal monarchy for the Windsors to fill. The CI/Niue have messed with this, as they fudge the line of sovereignty, but the realm remains the realm based around the state of New Zealand, a realm which the CI/Niue have not opted out of. Your other association cases are not at all the same in principle (for example, none lack their own citizenship), but that is tangential to the point that the association is sui generis, something New Zealand has developed with the CI/Niue as time has gone on.

And no, I have not at any point agreed to any of your proposals here. I still haven't seen any need to change it from what it is. CMD (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to you - what's the difference between "self-governance" and "fully independent sovereign state"? Are they the same or not? The sources clearly state that CI and Niue are fully independent sovereign states (now, not in 1960s or 1970s. Their status gradually evolved just as the status of Canada and Australia in relation to the UK). How these sovereign states decide to manage their relationships with other countries like NZ or USA is irrelevant - association, citizenship or something else. Monaco and Liechtenstein relationships with France and Switzerland are much more "sovereignty infringing", but that's also irrelevant since that's what Monaco and Liechtenstein decided themselves.

"realm based around the state of New Zealand" - yes, state NZ is the major part of the realm, but as you see in JCD "3. Head of state" the state NZ does not have any rights over CI. The head of state relationship is between the Queen of the realm and CI. The state NZ is not involved.

There is agreement for the relations sentence. There is agreement for the association/citizenship sentence. The only disagreement is for the head of state/realm sentence. What I propose for that sentence is to be as similar as possible to the other realm sentences. You don't explain why you disagree with that and don't propose anything, so we can quote it verbatim from the source. Japinderum (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to update the relations and association/citizenship sentences and continue the discussion for the head of state/realm sentence. OK? Japinderum (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources "clearly state" nothing of the sort. I haven't seen any source which depicts the situation as clear, and even if there was one, it would be running against all the others which do not. For some reason, you keep repeating that the state is not involved, despite that point being clearly established by both of us, so it's not making any new points.

There is an agreement to update the relations sentence, and that was established on the article talkpage. As far as I can see, there's no agreement to change anything else. I disagree with changing an extent that we eventually came to after a yearlong discussion without a compelling reason to do so. CMD (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, clearly showing sovereign state: Court ruling, page 262: "... the Cook Islands is a fully sovereign independent state ...", UN Office of Legal Affairs Page 23, number 86: "...the question of the status, as a State, of the Cook Islands, had been duly decided in the affirmative...", Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs Supplement No. 8; page 10, UN map of the World. Quite clear situation. Maybe that contradicts some older, not properly updated, poorly informed, unofficial and/or non-diplomatic sources, but that's not a reason to use those that have errors.

Sources, clearly showing head of state: NZ-CI JCD of 2001: "3 Head of State: 1. Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State of the Cook Islands is advised exclusively by her Cook Islands Ministers in matters relating to the Cook Islands. 2. In all matters affecting the Realm of New Zealand, of which the Cook Islands and New Zealand are part, there will be close consultation between the Signatories."

OK, if you agree that the state NZ is not involved, then for your next remark "but CI uses NZ head of state" please be so kind to write "NZ realm" instead of "NZ". And that's my point - the current extent mentions neither the RNZ nor the Commonwealth - e.g. it entirely disregards the realm and wrongly relates the CI head of state to New Zealand (NZ-the-state) - that you say we both agree isn't involved. Japinderum (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few sources which say this, but they are in no way a majority, and their existence doesn't mean that every other source is wrong. They're also primary documents, which we shouldn't be basing our text on.

And no, there's no need to replace it. The NZ government has no power yes, and the CI government can do whatever it wants. However, the CI have chosen to continue to use the NZ head of state. They have chosen to keep NZ involved in some manner. The Realm is simply an extension of this choice to create an associated state status. CMD (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case being primary documents is an advantage, because this is such a fringe sui generis case that the unofficial/non-primary sources simply overlook by either being sloppy or relying on old information. Do you have any primary source to contradict those above? And actually we utilize many primary sources, especially about matters with tricky details such as diplomatic recognitions and relations, and rightly so - just look at the "Kosovo recognition" or "Palestine recognition" talk pages. Anyway - if you don't agree that CI and Niue are sovereign states, then they have to be removed from the list, thus will have no extents, thus the current discussion of their extents will become irrelevant.

"CI have chosen to continue to use the Queen of NZ-realm as head of state". JCD: "the Queen as Head of State of the Cook Islands", "Realm of New Zealand, of which the Cook Islands and New Zealand are part". You may also find interesting the Future of the Realm - it mentions options both-ways, e.g. including simultaneous existence of NZ republic (state) and NZ queen (of the realm, that NZ-the-state isn't part of anymore).

I think what you disagree with me is the following: in relation to the head of state the extent has to mention the RNZ/Commonwealth Queen and not the NZ-the-state. I have shown you the sources about it. Do you have any source for the contrary? Japinderum (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per wikipedia policy, primary cases must be treated with care. Furthermore, there's no reason to assume that your or any other wikipedians view is less sloppy than external secondary sources. My position on CI/Niue should be well known to you by now, so I deign to go around that circle again. The extent mentions exactly what it has to mention. The CI head of state is the head of state of New Zealand, the head of the state, and due to this the head of the realm. There are sources everywhere, including the ones you've shown, which note that the Queen of New Zealand is the head of state. Here's a MFAI document with a short explanation of the Cook Islands status. CMD (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's treat primary sources with care, but that doesn't mean we should write something that obviously contradicts them. And the advice to avoid primary sources is because of "bias" and "conflict of interest", which in this case aren't applicable. If an official legislative document says something, that's the way it is. Whether somebody disagrees, because he would've made some changes to the wording - were he a member of the parliament, doesn't matter. And not my view, but the primary sources are less sloppy than the unofficial sources. It's like reading a treaty from a school textbook or from the official repository.

Also it's important to note (as the "Future of the realm" shows) that the CI-RNZ/Commonwealth arrangement (for head of state) is not related to the CI-NZ(the state) arrangement for "association". Either one of these can be changed without affecting the other.

The head of state of the realm, the Commonwealth sovereign, is head of state of the Cook Islands. Both your source and the JCD clearly state that CI and NZ-the-state are separate parts of NZ-the-realm. You said you agree that NZ-the-state isn't involved in any way, but you continue to insist in portraying the issue as if it is. NZ-the-state head of state is irrelevant for the CI. He can be an elected president or something else, that won't affect the status of the Commonwealth (and RNZ) queen in the CI. The same for association - whatever the two heads of state are the two sovereign states can maintain their association arrangements if they want to.

The current extent head of state sentence is misleading and mentions neither the RNZ nor the Commonwealth. If we can't agree on wording, then a verbatim quote from the source has to be utilized. Japinderum (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, let's not contradict the above linked (here again) 2005 MFAI publication, and explicitly quote "The status of self-government in free association is different from integration with the metropolitan state (on one hand) and independence from the metropolitan state (on the other)" than shall we? That's a primary, official source without any sloppiness, coming directly from the party involved. Note also that it includes the shared head of state (and thus the shared realm) as an effect of association, contradicting your OR assertions that they are different. CMD (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you give is "in respect to NZ in constitutional terms". In respect to everybody else in the World outside of NZ it's a "sovereign and independent state" (Clause 4 of the JCD in the same source).

So, if you make a "List of sovereign states according to New Zealand" CI and Niue shouldn't be included (along with Palestine, Taiwan, etc.), but if you make a general "List of sovereign states" all of these should be included, because such list is neither NZ/CI/Niue-constitution-centric, nor Israel&friends-centric, nor PRChina&friends-centric.

In relation to the CI/Niue extents - here again the general situation is the more important one - that's why it should start with the relations/UN sentences (this is compliant with the column heading list definition). Then NZ-association/citizenship (as you insist to put it as forward as possible). Then head of state/realm (about the head of state the relevant non-sloppy statement is Clause 3 of the JCD in the same source. But I think a shorter sentence as I proposed above is a better fit). Japinderum (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the quote I gave is the opening sentence that describes what free association is. Clause 4 however, is explicitly "In the conduct of its foreign affairs", and further specifies that it "interacts as a sovereign and independent state", rather than going straight out and saying it. The general situation is the one given at the very top of the source, "a special constitutional relationship of free association with New Zealand." CMD (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object mentioning the special relationship, but that's about the niche-case situation of interaction with NZ. Of course the document starts with the special interaction - that's the point of the whole document - if there wasn't a special interaction there wouldn't be a need for such document or for our discussion.

The general situation is the situation in relation to everybody in the world other than NZ (NZ is a minority of one, obviously an exception and not a generality). And that's the situation of independent sovereign state, as confirmed by NZ itself (for all purposes other than citizenship), by the UN, by court ruling, by virtually all international organizations and states (many explicitly confirm, nobody explicitly denies).

As I said above - if you want the niche-case NZ-related situation to be the leading one, then CI and Niue should be removed from the list. If they are included, then the leading one is the general situation. Of course, in both cases the other situation will be mentioned (if you remove CI/Niue from the list their status will be explained in more detail in the NZ extent. If you include CI/Niue in the list their special relationship with NZ will be mentioned also in their own extents). But what we disagree now is which is the leading one. Your position is self-contradicting by wanting to simultaneously use the niche-NZ-constitution-centric viewpoint for the extents and the general viewpoint for the list itself. Japinderum (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The constitutional status of the CI/Niue is not a "niche-case"; it's the basis for their entire legal and political personality. You keep drawing firm lines of separation to create differing positions which you ascribe to others, while you are the only one who sees these clear and distinct boundaries. The fact that the two are unique cases seems to have been accepted by everyone else. Your continued pushing on this issue (which everyone else seems to be happy to drop), here, on the Commonwealth Realms page, previously on the sovereign states page, etc, all the while in opposition to a variety of other editors, is extremely tendentious. I strongly suggest you drop the topic. CMD (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional relationship between CI/Niue and NZ is "niche-case" in comparison to the relationship between CI/Niue and the rest of the World.

The editors, who won the outmaneuvering, are happy with a list full of self-contradictions (e.g. it's wrong) - I listed those at the talk page and none of those editors gave any explanation - most probably because there is no explanation - the self-contradictions are simply the awful result of the pseudo-compromise and pseudo-consensus tactic employed during the outmaneuvering. That doesn't mean that everybody else should be happy with the article being wrong.

You either write the article as "List of sovereign states according to New Zealand constitution" (removing CI, Niue and others) or as "List of sovereign states" (including those). That's a clear and sourced boundary.

A side note - I'm amazed that the outmaneuvering editors haven't reached another peak - that of including only Niue or only the Cook Islands - with some weird and absurd reasoning such as "of the school maps and other junk sources I've seen Niue is shown on more of them than the Cook Islands, so as compromise I propose to include only Niue since there's less "evidence" for the Cook Islands". I bet if Niue territory was the size of Greenland this would've been the case.

If you aren't going to change your position, despite of all said above, then we have to use a verbatim quote of clause 3 for the head of state/realm sentence. Japinderum (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New Zealand constitution doesn't list sovereign states, and your boundary is neither clear nor the only one with a source. You're the only one still focused on this issue. I assuem no-one replied because we'd had a long and tiring mediation on the matter, and everyone was happy to just drop the topic. We don't have to use a cherry-picked verbatim quote because you say so. There's no consensus for a change, and not even a consensus that something has to change. If you aren't going to change your position, despite of all said above, then you're just going to keep wasting your time with this. CMD (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a constitution doesn't list states. What I explain is that according to everything official that's not related to the NZ constitution CI and Niue are fully independent sovereign states. Unofficial sources of course get confused (or don't care) by the many details in this case and perpetuate the common misconception of the contrary. Your "everyone" that don't care to explain the glaring self-contradictions inflicted on the article are "happy to drop the topic" instead of provide reasons for why they did it. And that's because the reasons are flimsy or non-existent.

Maybe we should wait for some Palestine or Kosovo UN-development that will show to those "everyone" that their outmaneuvering produced an unworkable setup. Or even then they'll close their eyes and simply introduce the next discrepancy.

But fine, then you implement the relations sentence change we agreed on already - I did it, but you reverted, so go ahead and do it in a way you like it. Japinderum (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are scattered throughout the mediation archives, available to anyone who wants to read them. I'll make the change then. CMD (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answers to the specific questions about self-contradictions aren't in the archives. Points 7 to 11 and Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Archive_10#Lead_contradicts_table. I don't even ask for link to to the archives showing consensus for each of those points - I just ask for a quick explanation of these self-contradictions. Maybe others think those are not self-contradictions? Most of these are pretty easy to correct (e.g. some of them are automatic result of column sorting - and maybe are not intentional - and thus a small hidden wikicode sorting tag will be enough to correct). I assume that the UN-membership-POV-pushers didn't even read those points - they disregard the whole question, because it's encroaching into their "hardly reached consensus". Japinderum (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the consensus was invalid and want to go back to the status quo ante bellum with the unsortable table w/o CI/Niue you are free to bring that point up. CMD (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's better. At least it was glaringly weaselish. The current one is sneaky enough to look at first glance as if it's OK - that's unless you start reading of course.

I see your redaction of the recognition/relations extents - your text is not the same as what was proposed on the talk page and you managed to further increase the UN-membership-POV bias in it. How convenient. Also, the text structure is not identical for CI and Niue and also for Vatican. I think it should be the same for the three "mainstream" states outside the UN, only the number of diplomatic relations established should be different. Japinderum (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i need your help to protect the Somaliland page and if you go back in the view history you will find that the paage was blanet several times so if you can or someone can protect the page so it becomes hard for vandalism.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraawi (talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a page needs protecting, it should be reported to WP:RfPP, where someone else will evaluate the necessity of protection. I do not have this ability. Regards, CMD (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

1/Why did you choose to talk about what you don't understand?

If you read the "accord de Nouméa" it say than WE people of new-Caledonia will choose the future of OUR country between 2014 and 2018 ;The discution about the flag was about show it on the mayors offices or not (for your information not all the mayor offices show it some of theme only show the France flag) IT IS NOT THE OFFICIAL FLAG AND NEW CALEDONIA IS STILL PART OF FRANCE. http://www.gouv.nc/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/12320003.PDF this is a REAL OFFICIAL SOURCE

2/why you choose to ignore people who are concerned

It is not the first time some people from other country choose to trust what they see on the net (witch mean nothing than we can trust). You just increase tensions here whit wrong informations for that you are clearly responsible so when it is gonna explode (and it will thanks to you and other of the same kind ...)i will send you pictures and documents so you can see what you've done from your country in your comfortable office ...

3/Why you undo things about a country that is on the other side of earth.

I don't even care about your country (the genocide of Tasmania, the civil war, ...) why don't you do the same. Or maybe your are omnipotent and knows every things just with your spirits, in this case may i call you god ... but in if not just try to talk about what you know it will be the best for the rest of the human kind.

so thanks again for you infinite knowledge... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzu (talk • contribs) 04:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, how can Chipmunkdavis be omnipotent too? Surely one of us must be merely ultrapotent, and as a result at least partially impotent! Or at the very least we're idempotent. TDL (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) - Possibly he isn't omnipotent, after all. In section 40(!) above he even lists an ability he doesn't have... (unless that's just to throw us off the scent) Begoon ^talk 06:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! In your map File:Recognition of Israel.svg, Iran needs to be colored in pink, because from the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 until the Iranian Revolution and the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, Iran did recognize Israel and in addition had diplomatic relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.20.246 (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is now done. CMD (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chipmunkdavis!

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACountry_topics&diff=528227040&oldid=528158755

I understand your rationale and, personally, don't think I mind whether or not the template includes a WikiProject link, but I'm wondering if removing it might have more of an impact on those WikiProjects than imagined. On a page that includes the template, for instance, the WikiProject link provided by the template might've been the only indication that the WikiProject exists..? (Or maybe the idea of WikiProjects is being wound down..?) CsDix (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it has a great effect. Wikiprojects are the domain of editors, quite irrelevant to the readers who would be using that template (readers who are not editors that is). Editors will already know of wikiprojects from the talkpage, where any article with one of these templates is most likely to link to the relevant wikiprojects on the talkpage. As for wikiprojects winding down, many country ones, if they exist, are inactive or dead anyway. CMD (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I'm happy to go with your experience. CsDix (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say the Italians took Eritrea from Ethiopia that is not at all true. If you merely read some books, it has been written that Eritrea had been separate from Ethiopia before the Italians took over. They had the kingdom of Medri Bahri. Before Axum, Eritrea was also separate: they had city-states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nummies (talk • contribs) 05:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever kingdoms existed in the area before is irrelevant to the fact that Italy took it over from Ethiopia, creating what is now Eritrea. CMD (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the last few posts in this UK Talk thread. The country infobox template seems not to be designed to have a source citation for a country's ranking. This is the sort of thing you usually know the history/reasons for/background on! Care to comment? DeCausa (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you'd have the answer! DeCausa (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please archive your talk page content, its too big now.

Based on consensus, as shown on Talk:Puducherry, the wikipedia page on union territory of India has been moved from Pondicherry to Puducherry. Since, there is no consensus yet on city or district of the same name, I am not changing it on other pages; didn't change text on page of historical documents. However, this page is not a historical topic, it is a list of current such territories as noted by UN.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Recently, a major change was made on the article Flag of Western Sahara, by merging it with Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic .

Since you participated to the RfC discussion on Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara, you might be interested by a related discussion on ANI or, at least, you might be interested in participating to the recently launched discussion on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis, I'm just dropping a note regarding my rv of your edit in the Falkland Islands article. As I said, I believe regarding the islands as a comparable "entity" as the UK or Argentina has a possible political undertone since they are actually a British overseas territory and not a country. Even more, their right to make political decisions regarding the islands (as a physical object) is clearly contested by Argentina which would make referring to the "Falkland Islands" instead of the "residents of the Falkland Islands" all the more controversial. I could be wrong here though. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any political undertones. The Falklands aren't the same sort of entity as the UK and Argentina, but they're still an entity, and the sentence isn't restricted to one type of entity. I don't see it as implying this either, as any political area with a governing body, from small town to the United Nations, can be discussed in a similar way. The right of the Falkland Islands/residents of the Falkland Islands to make a political decision is quite irrelevant to whether or not it has that opinion. That sentence is similar to the one in the article (I slashed so both options are visible) and I think it reads better without "resident of". As a last point, while in this case there's basically no difference between the opinion of the government of the Falklands and the sum opinion of the people of the Falklands, it's not always the case that the opinions of a government and the people are the same. In general, with a sentence dealing with the opinion of authoritative bodies (legitimate or not), I feel it's better to not attribute it to the entire populous. CMD (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, after my rv another editor rv'd me so this isn't an issue anymore. In any case you do make a valid point. Thanks for your answer! Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't come across the term Y-chromosomal Adam in any subject other than human genetics, then why the article starts with "In human genetics". Then why you made this edit summary? --PlanetEditor (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why that article starts like that, but it is similarly unnecessary. If articles started like "In history, World War II was a global war..." they wouldn't read as well. CMD (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should distinguish academic phraseology from popular words. Since we don't heard the term Y-chromosomal Adam in the popular culture and everyday conversation, I think they have specified the subject in which it has importance. Similarly we use the terms country, nation, or state in everyday conversation or is used by the media. But the term "Sovereign state" is not used in popular discourse, in the media. It is used only in academic discussions. So it is necessary in which subject it is so important. World War 2, on the other hand, is widely used in media and in popular discourse. --PlanetEditor (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign state covers exactly the same topic as countries, and states for that matter. It is also relevant to more than just one academic field. Starting the article with "In X" creates a restriction that isn't needed. CMD (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the article name is clear? Why do we need a special section with vague definitions? Is it to satisfy some people's inability to work within Wikipedia guidelines? The ones I left there are ones that arguments could be made for, like Greenland, French Polynesia and Aruba. Could you explain why uninhabited islands and integral territories need to be included? Can you explain how Macau qualifies as an island country when it has a glaringly obvious mainland peninsula? 212.113.145.253 (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing with the word "countries" is clear, especially on wikipedia. I don't have an explanation for each individual entry, but the mass removal was far more extensive than ones without arguments. CMD (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the gist of your argument is that too many were removed? Even though I gave a clear justification for each removal? 02:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.145.253 (talk)

No, too many were removed with insufficient justification. It was also inconsistent. You took off some US and French territories while leaving others for example. CMD (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chipmunkdavis,

As to my contention that Bahrain is in no way a constitutional monarchy but, instead, an absolute monarchy, I refer you to one of the latest articles in this regard: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#inbox/13d9671763240907

regards,

csc ^[6]

That's a link to a mailbox. As for the argument, Bahrain's constitution can be seen here. CMD (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BFBS's TV channel lineup changed a few weeks ago - http://www.bfbs.com/radio/article/bfbs-tv-set-for-a-makeover-on-27th-march As a result, the channels available to civilians in the Falkland Islands changed as well. The Penguin News publishes TV listings with the new channels, but in order to view its TV page, you need to log in with a password, while the BFBS website, obviously catering for its intended audience, doesn't distinguish between the channels only available to HM Forces (Sky Sports 1 and 2, and BFBS Sport) and those available to everyone. Quiensabe (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is that the source is now there, and it seems fine. Thanks, CMD (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I want to know some information about the Vatican City State. You have already said me that PRC doesn't have any diplomatic relations with Vatican because it recognises the ROC. But I think that "internationally recognised sovereign state" means that state received a recognition from all permanent members of the UN Security Council, isn't it? I want to know: 1) Is Vatican recognised by the PRC, 2) What is the correct number of INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED SOVEREIGN STATES ( I think 194 - UN members and Vatican City (Palestinian state is not internationally recognised)). Please help! User02062000 (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internationally recognised sovereign state could mean quite a few things, and there will always be someone not quite happy with the status quo, but the definition that has been agreed upon here by editors (after very long discussions) is countries that the members of the United Nations have accepted as states, be it as members or as observers. The PRC often breaks ties with countries that have relations with Taiwan, but this is not necessarily a lack of recognition, just a refusal to do business. The correct number of internationally recognised sovereign states is again, dependent on the criteria used, but the criteria used here results in the list seen on List of sovereign states, where a majority of states voted to accept Palestine as a state. CMD (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I'll use my criteria which defines state only if it is recognised by absolutely ALL states in the world as sovereign and independent state, there will be 188 states around the world (187 UN member states (excluding 6 not fully recognised - Armenia, Israel, Cyprus, PRC, North and South Koreas), and the State of Vatican City (not Holy See, that is the governing body of Vatican City State), recognised by ALL states as sovereign). Is it such as I say, are all states I've named are recognised by each other? Please answer, are all states I've named are absolutely recognised and my criteria yare can be right? User02062000 (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, so far as I know. CMD (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which states do not recognize the State of Vatican City? I know that the Holy See has no any relations with PRC and North Korea and some other states. Is it means that these states do not recognize Vatican City. Is it? WHAT SOURCES can prove that Vatican City is recognized by those states that have no any relations with it? And also, what entity is a state: Holy See or Vatican City? User02062000 (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any sources on the matter. The combination of both is the state, although academic arguments go in different directions. CMD (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday in the list of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent there was only one UN non-member state: Vatican City. Today, when I added an amendment that Palestine is sovereign, and then deleted it, you have reverted list to version in which Palestine is considered sovereign state. Then, there is a question: why Palestine was not considered sovereign yesterday and earlier, but today it is considered? Why did you delete my re-contribute?Also, there is a question: how many states recognised by the UN as sovereign are not its members? User02062000 (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Many wikipedia pages are out of date, as the world changes around it. That page simply hadn't been updated yet. There are two observer states, as our articles say. That's all in the main UN. Some subsidiary world bodies include a few other polities, such as the Cook Islands, Kosovo, and Niue, as members as well, but they have not received the same treatment by the general assembly. CMD (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, currently there are only two states de jure recognised by international community that are not members of the UN: the Holy See (Vatican City State) and the State of Palestine. But what we must to do with other entities in the List of sovereign states? I think, the section "List of states" must be divided into two sections: "Internationally recognised sovereign states" and "States with limited or no recognition". The 195 UN-recognised states must be included into the first section, and other states that are considered to be non-sovereign (part of a parent, recognised state) by the UN. I think it is a good idea, isn't it? User02062000 (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is how the current List of sovereign states is divided, it's just in one table so it can be organised in other ways as well. CMD (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that in Wikipedia on another languages, such as bahasa Indonesia or Russian Wikipedia, State of Palestine is considered a state with limited recognition, and fact that Palestine does not recognised by approximately 60 states, including 3 permanent Security Council members, is considered a lack of recognition. But the last updates of that lists were not so much time ago, not more than 1 month. There is a question: how much time ago did the State of Palestine become a fully independent sovereign state, if in other Wikipedias Palestine is considered not fully recognised, but with limited recognition? And what pages can ARGUE a fact that Palestine is fully recognised? User02062000 (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC) The second problem is: in the "List of states with limited recognition" in section "criteria for inclusion" there is a criteria: state must be recognized as a state by at least one other state. But Somaliland is not recognized by any state! Then, it must be excluded from this list! And also, there are some states, for example, Niue, Wasiristan, Azad Kashmir and other unrecognized states are not included in this list, but unrecognized Somaliland is included. Why? User02062000 (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sudden divide between limited and full recognition. Palestine remains a state with limited recognition, but so do many other states, such as both Koreas, China, and Israel. The time Palestine moved from the second section of en.wiki's list to the first section was after the UN vote establishing it as a UN observer state.

There are two criteria, (a) and (b), and a state can meet either. Somaliland meets criteria (a), "have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory". Niue is rather controversially included, but Waziristan and Azad Kashmir don't, being both controlled by Pakistan. CMD (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But in what section must CI and Niue include? Recognised states, states with limited recognition or dependent territory? What criteria do CI and Niue meet? I know, that they are both with complicated status, but in what section they must be included more specifically? User02062000 (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what your sections are. In our list, they're in the non-UN section. CMD (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If my sections are "internationally recognised states", "states with limited or no recognition" and "dependent and autonomous areas"? Where must CI and Niue be placed more specifically? When I had deleted CI and Niue from the list of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania, you said that they are "rarely described as sovereign states, but as they are sometimes, they are included in the List of sovereign states". If they are SOMETIMES described as sovereign states, it means that they are more often described as dependent, non-sovereign territories. Is it so?User02062000 (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on your criteria for each section. The Cook Islands and Niue are usually described with something along the lines of "self-governing in free association with New Zealand". Rarely are they presented as sovereign states. The Cook Islands defines its status as distinct from integration...and independence. CMD (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But are they (CI and Niue) usually described as "states with limited recognition"? They are recognised by few states but they are not placed in the list of states with limited recognition. Also, what criteria of statehood are usually used in international law and how many states are those criteria define?User02062000 (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are not usually described as sovereign states, but they do not have a recognition problem. They have diplomatic relations independent with New Zealand, through which they interact with other states, and no state contests their ability to do so. What limits them is that they haven't gone out and said they're independent yet. The criteria most used for sovereign states is laid out in the Montevideo Convention. Those criteria end up with roughly the list we have. CMD (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But why must we include CI and Niue, if they are not usually considered sovereign states? Even in the lists of countries by continent they are in the section "dependent and other territories". I think we must EXCLUDE CI and Niue. User02062000 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:List of sovereign states/Cook Islands and Niue, where the matter was discussed for years. Due to their sometimes being considered sovereign states, they're included, but they have a very long extant explaining the situation. CMD (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they included in the section "Dependent and other territories" in the List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania? And in other lists of states they are considered non-sovereign? Only in the List of sovereign states CI and Niue have its own sections. And also, about criteria of statehood: the second criteria is "state must be recognized by at least one other state. Is Azad Kashmir recognised by Pakistan, or no? If it s rscognized, it must be included in the list of sovereign states because it meets the second criteria. User02062000 (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list of sovereign states does not have a section for dependent and other territories, and it would be excessive to create a unique section for them. In other articles with more sections, there is more flexibility with regards to their placement. Previous discussion determined that Azad Kashmir is recognised by Pakistan not as a sovereign state, but as a political body with the right to have a referendum as part of a united Kashmir. If you have sources that show otherwise, you should present them on the talkpage of the article for consideration. If Azad Kashmir is recognised asa state, it would be included. CMD (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, Niue and CI are more often described as dependencies (if we must choose between sovereign states and dependent territories) , isn't it? (Answer me: Yes or No). User02062000 (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we must force things into black and white boxes, then yes, CI/Niue are most often described as dependencies. Most atlases I've seen for example, put "(NZ)" after them. They are however, far more independent than your standard dependent territory; the NZ government has no direct power there. CMD (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many from 206 states in the List of sovereign states are meeting the four criteria of Montevideo Convention? Are there any states excluded from the list but meeting Convention's criteria? Are CI and Niue meets all of these criteria as other sovereign states? User02062000 (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone through the whole list, although the vast majority no doubt do. As far as myself and the other editors of the article are aware, every state that meets this criteria is on the list. The CI/Niue meet the on the ground criteria, but fail the criteria of considering themselves a sovereign state, preferring instead their association, as per the link I presented above. CMD (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are 195 countries that are recognized by the UN and independent states. But are CI and Niue are recognised by the UN as states, or they are considered non-sovereign self-governing territories controlled by New Zealand? User02062000 (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there has not been a UNGA statement on CI/Niue, other than taking them off the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. CMD (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you can see List of non-self-governing territories, there are 16 entities, and CI and Niue are excluded. They are in section "former entities" and now in the UN they are not belong neither to states, nor to dependencies and other. Why? User02062000 (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The UN removes anything that isn't what it feels to be a 'colony'. This includes territories which it feels have sufficient internal self-governance, such as the CI/Niue and Puerto Rico, even if they're not independent. There's no single definition of "dependent" territory. CMD (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have 2 questions: 1) Are CI/Niue are recognized as sovereign states by the UN or no, and there will be only 195 recognised states by the UN; 2) Why in the UN is used the designation "Holy See", but not "Vatican City"? Vatican City is a state, but not the Holy See! User02062000 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Are there any states except CI/Niue that can be considered as sovereign, but most often described as dependencies? If there are some such states, they must be included in the List of sovereign states. User02062000 (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, I haven't seen an official UN statement on this issue. The Holy See is the sovereign personality representing the Vatican City, it's a rather unique situation, but all international affairs happen under the title Holy See. If there were any states similar to CI/Niue that we knew of, they would be included in the list. CMD (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But why in all pages about freely associated states and CI and Niue, they are described as STATES in free association, but not any other entities? Also, you can see "List of dependent territories", in which CI/Niue are included. There is a question: why in all lists CI/Niue are listed as dependencies, but in notes they are described as sovereign states??? And I can't understand: must CI/Niue belong to sovereign states or dependencies? They are rarely described in pages on Wikipedia as "self-governing in free association", but they are described as I wrote before. Explain why? User02062000 (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are described as such because many sources describe them as such. I'm not sure what notes you're talking about, but again, their position is unique. There's no must, they're described as sources note. Keep in mind every page on wikipedia can be edited by anyone. If you see a page that describes them as something else, and you feel it should be changed, you can change it or bring it up for discussion. CMD (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, HOW MANY states are de jure (and de facto, of course) recognized by the UN? (say me a number of states). Please answer exactly as you can! User02062000 (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the UN, I am not privy to its positions on everything. The UN has accepted 195 countries as states, 193 as members, 2 as observers. That's 195, since you want a number. Recognition is a de jure act. De facto recognition is a far vaguer and disputable concept. CMD (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The List of sovereign states contains 206 states. The UN accepted 195 states. Other 11 states are not in the UN System. Then, other states must be accepted by the UN as part of member state (Kosovo - Serbia, Taiwan - China, Transnistria - Moldova, NKR - Azerbaijan, Somaliland - Somalia, Turkish Cyprus - Cyprus, SADR - no state, Abkhazia and South Ossetia - Georgia, and CI/Niue - New Zealand). Is it so? User02062000 (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The UN nominally had control over Kosovo pre-independence, and I don't think the official status has changed since then, with Russia on the SC. Taiwan is considered part of China. Turkish Cyprus has been declared illegal. The SADR is not recognised, with the Western Sahara not having an official controller. I'm unaware of any specific statements on Transnistria, NKR, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, but I suspect you are correct in your assessment. CI/Niue aren't considered part of New Zealand, but associated with it. CMD (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But is Kosovo considered a part of Serbia by the UN? I know that there is a peacekeeping mission of the UN in Kosovo. Do you know, is Kosovo is internationally recognised as part of Serbia (by the UN)? And what other countries of the world (except those which accepted CI/Niue as subjects of International Law) think about CI/Niue? Are they recognize these entities as sovereign or as partly sovereign but controlled by NZ? For example, CI/Niue are considered states with limited recognition in German (deutsch) Wikipedia. User02062000 (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any change in UN status since Kosovo declared independence, but I haven't published anything to dispute independence either. Considering there are friends and enemies in the SC, likely there hasn't been an official position. Other countries are probably happy to give CI/Niue whatever status it wants. They are not controlled by NZ at all, but by their choice, maintain some elements such as citizenship and head of state. CMD (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some lists are consider CI/Niue as NON-MEMBER STATES of the UN, and the map "world today" also consider Niue and CI as non-member states. Why? In all other maps CI/Niue are considered by the UN as part of New Zealand. User02062000 (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. As I've said repeatedly, the situation is unique and not clear, so you'll have to ask each individual map or list author. CMD (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say me in brief why in Talk:List of sovereign states/Cook Islands and Niue editors have decided to add CI/Niue to the List of sovereign states? User02062000 (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because we found this source, and a couple of similar ones. CMD (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) Are CI/Niue meet ALL 4 criteria of Montevideo Convention? 2) Are ALL 16 states with limited recognition meet these 4 four criteria? 3) Are other 187 UN member states and Vatican City meet these 4 criteria? You can answer in such way: 1) yes/no; 2) yes/no; 3) yes/no. Add a note if you feel it necessary. User02062000 (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes, but so does every inhabited dependent territory. 2) Yes 3) Yes, with the possible exception of Vatican city, whose population is transient. CMD (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that so does every inhabited dependent territory? It has no capacity to have relations with other states. Also, are all states in the List of sovereign states meet the criteria used for this list (a, b)? User02062000 (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many dependent territories do have the capacity to enter relations with other states, and even represent themselves in various international fora, such as CARICOM. Everything in that list meets either a, b, or both. CMD (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any states that meet criteria of the List of sovereign states, but not included of that list? Can you name them? User02062000 (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that meets the criteria that we know about is on that list. CMD (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But what is the source of these two criteria used in the List of sovereign states? Where were it found? Who used these criteria first? User02062000 (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria are the Declarative theory of statehood and the Constitutive theory of statehood. CMD (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What states are meet only declarative theory criteria, and what states are meet only constitutive theory criteria? (Please name those states that are not defined as states by declarative theory, and states not defined as such by constitutive theory) User02062000 (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somaliland only meets the declarative theory, with Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh in almost the same situation, followed to different degrees by the other states of limited recognition. Most states which meet the constitutive theory meet the declarative theory, with debatable exceptions being Palestine and Somalia. CMD (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What with NKR, PMR, Palestine and Somalia? What theory of statehood are they meet? In what theory have they disputable status of considering state? Also, you have already said that every inhabited dependent territory meets the criteria of declarative theory. Then, dependent territories such as Tokelau must be included in the list, but they're not. Why? (I have read the Montevideo Convention, in which the declarative theory appears. There are no point in which say that "state must declared independence and is often regarded as ... Etc.", but in the criteria (a) in the list of sovereign states there is such text. You said that the point (a) is the point for declarative theory. And, how I have said, in the declarative theory there is no such point. Why are dependent territories not included in that list, if they are meet the criteria of declarative theory, as you have said?) User02062000 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NKR and PMR are only recognised by Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which is rather tenuous recognition, so they mostly meet declarative. Somalia and Palestine have extremely limited control over the territory they claim, and for a long time existed only in name, both have however expanded actual control in the past few years.

The Montevideo Convention applies to states. If something is not a state, in that they haven't declared themselves to be one, and haven't been called such by another power, then the convention does not apply to them, as they are not states. Otherwise even various subnational units would qualify. CMD (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are all states in the list of sovereign states (206 entities) meet the criteria of the declarative theory (Somalia and Palestine including)? The Montevideo Convention is apply to CI/Niue, isn't it? (As you've said, the convention is apply for states that have received diplomatic recognition from another one as sovereign state. Then CI/Niue are defined as states by the declarative and constitutive theories) User02062000 (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you include Somalia and Palestine, then yes, everything. CI/Niue have never as far as we've found declared independence. They're included in the list per the constitutive theory. CMD (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are Montevideo Convention and declarative theory are the same? Why did you say that every inhabited dependent territory meet 4 criteria of the convention? You have said later that Montevideo Convention is only about STATES, but not DEPENDENCIES! Also, only 204 entities of 206 are defined as states by the declarative theory of statehood, isn't it? CI/Niue are not defined as states by only the constitutive theory! User02062000 (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Montevideo Convention codified the declarative theory. You can meet some criteria even if they don't apply to you, I was just pointing out that key to being a state is calling yourself a state, which dependent territories fail. CI/Niue are again a grey area. CMD (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it means that CI/Niue are not considered sovereign states by the declarative theory? Yes or no? (Add a note and please, give me a correct NUMBER of states that are define as such by the declarative theory. User02062000 (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to get a yes or no, because it's a unique and complicated situation. You can figure out the numbers yourself based on our page. CMD (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you have said that CI/Niue meet only CONSTITUTIVE theory, but not DECLARATIVE! Isn't it? Also, are there any states meeting both theories but not included on the list? User02062000 (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By act of parliament, New Zealand has irrevocably ceded authority to legislate for the Cook Islands and the Queen's representative is selected on the recommendation of the CI government and constitutionally obligated to act on their advice. The "Realm of New Zealand" means nothing more than that the same person represents the Queen as governor-general. So it meets both theories. TFD (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TFD takes the view that a relinquishment by one power counts as the declaration for another. I'm not sure that's necessarily true, but it's one opinion. The CI/Niue also maintain the links of citizenship, although as TFD says this is on their terms and not New Zealands. Again, everything that w eknow meets one or both theories is on the list. CMD (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Q&A Public Law, p. 25, "grants of independence to former colonies...are given legal effect by an Act of Parliament stating that Parliament will no longer legislate for the country in question."[35] AFAIK, only the American colonies and Ireland achieved independence from the U.K. through a declaration of independence. So there are over 50 sovereign states that achieved independence in this manner. TFD (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, there are 206 sovereign states defined by two main theories of statehood. Is it a right conclusion? Are there any other theories of statehood? User02062000 (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable conclusion, and the one we've come up with. Those are the academic theories of statehood. Real-world practice is of course a bit more muddled, as explained in Sovereign state. CMD (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why CI/Niue are not belong to sovereign states in other lists? They are recognised by some states and defined as states by statehood theories. We can add a note about recognition of their sovereignty. User02062000 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because in many publications, such as the one I presented above, they claim they're not yet fully independent. Many other sources also don't describe them as such. CMD (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I understood that they are not fully independent from NZ, and then rarely considered sovereign states. But they are include in the list of states because they are recognised as independent by some another countries. Is it so? User02062000 (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Also I have the next question: CI/Niue in some lists are consider to be UN non-member state. But on other pages they are considered not to be recognized by the UN. IT CAN'T BE DIFFERENT AUTHORS, THE UN IS ONE! UN must have a definite position: or to accept CI/Niue as states, or not. What is the CORRECT position of the United Nations? User02062000 (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have a couple of sources noting recognition as sovereign states. There hasn't been a definite UN position taken on the issue, at least from what I've seen. This means different UN subgroups and organisations can treat them as they wish. There is no official UN designation for non-member states, with the closest being the granting of observer state status, something established only in practice. CMD (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

then, which sources are right: those which describe CI/Niue as sovereign or those that not describe them as such? User02062000 (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear what degree of independence a nation needs to be considered independent. Perhaps it is more a political decision, in which case we could not say which was right. NZ and the US say that they are not sovereign, yet the Commonwealth says CI is.[36] South Pacific Islands Legal Systems (1993) discusses he issue on pp. 12-13.[37] Here is a story about the NZ position in 2001. So it is probable that we will never find a definite answer for a classification. TFD (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, List of sovereign states includes all states defined by at least 1 another state or theory as a state (there are no any states that are described by anybody as such). Is it a correct conclusion for the end of this discussion? User02062000 (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although being defined by 1 other states is part of the constitutive theory. CMD (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a question: Are CI/Niue meet only constitutive theory or both? As you've said earlier, they are included per the constitutive theory. Is it so? And also, why associated CI/Niue are most often considered to be non-sovereign territories, but such associated entities as Palau are considered to be fully independent from their parent country? Also, I've heard that CI/Niue are often considred constituent countries (such as Nothern Ireland or Greenland), but not states. Is it such? If it is such as I've said, I have a conclusion: CI and Niue are not considered sovereign states by NZ and international community. User02062000 (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We put it on the list because we had a couple of sources from diplomatic websites noting them as sovereign states. Whether they meet the declarative theory is up to academic interpretation. The US associated states are very different, they for example have their own citizenship. Associated is just a title, Puerto Rico for example includes that title in its Spanish name. Your conclusion is not unique, but it's not unanimous either. CMD (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Couple of your sources describe CI/Niue as sovereign, but other don't. Which sources are more correct? Are CI/Niue described as sovereign by the most of sources or no? User02062000 (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are inherently unreliable. Whichever is more correct is open to interpretation; possibly neither. Most sources seem to describe them as something other than a sovereign state, but I doubt most are particularly concerned about the matter. Realpolitiks is simpler to describe than academic positions. CMD (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have four questions: 1) Why does the UN specialized agencies have a members such as CI/Niue or Kosovo, which are does not considered sovereign states by the UN? 2) What entity is considered a state by the UN: Vatican City or the Holy See? 3) Is Palestine fully occupied by Israel and considered by it as part of its sovereign territory? 4) Are CI/Niue considered by NZ as its territories but not sovereign states? User02062000 (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) UN specialised agencies have their own voting procedures. 2) The UN recognised the Holy See as the sovereign entity. 3) Palestinian territory is considered occupied, and represented by the State of Palestine. 4) CI/Niue are considered by NZ as what they are, associated to it. CMD (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many states are recognized by the international community (de jure and de facto)? What states can be the members of the international community? User02062000 (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition is a de jure act. You've asked this already above. CMD (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer: 1) There are 204 entities that are defined as states according to the Montevideo Convention and declarative theory (Somalia and Palestine are included, of course). CI/Niue are not included because they haven't declared independence yet. Is it (Yes or No)? 2) There are 203 entities (or 205, if PMR and NKR are included) that are defined as states according to the constitutive theory. Is it? User02062000 (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) 204 is definitely a justifiable answer. CI/Niue have the right to self-determination, but have not used it to take full sovereignty yet.

2) Yes. CMD (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any entities that have declared independence but have no control over its territory and population? User02062000 (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty, such as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. However, I have no number for these, nor a list. These lists may help however. CMD (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the Republic of Ichkeria is a government-in-exile, isn't it? These entities have no boundaries and they are claiming to be only government, but not a country. Is it so? And please answer the second question: what theory of statehood is the dominant and the main: constitutive or declarative? And as I understood, the declarative theory is only for STATES, that have declared independence. Then, dependencies (inhabited) meet the criteria of convention (CI/Niue are include as dependency), but they all don't meet main point: they must declare independence, but dependencies fail this point that applies to states. Am I right? User02062000 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Governments tend to claim certain boundaries for the areas under their jurisdiction. What's wrong with it being a government-in-exile? It's still an entity with proclaimed independence but no control on the ground. As I noted before, the world runs out Realpolitik, not on academic theories. Both have their uses and implications. And yes, if something's not a state, there is limited use in applying statehood theories to it. CMD (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But please, answer exactly: what theory of statehood is the main theory? Declarative or constitutive? Which of these theories is the main? And also, if you mention realpolitik, what is it mean? User02062000 (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen either theory described as the "main theory", they're two theories, each with its own set of implications. They're both mentioned and used in various situations. Realpolitik, detailed in that article, means pragmatic concerns take place over ideological standpoints, which is often the case in international politics. CMD (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say why our list of sovereign states include only that entities that have been described as states by theories of statehood, but not realpolitik and other ways? You have already said that the world runs not on the academic theories. User02062000 (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Realpolitik doesn't describe states, it describes how states interact. The point is that bodies can be pragmatic in what they call a state or not, rather than sticking to one theory or the other. CMD (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But then, why are we include states defined by theories but not other criteria or different ways? User02062000 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name any ways or states defined by other ways? The theories are very WP:Verifiable, and we go on sources, not our own WP:Original research. CMD (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my repeated reversions on the Nauru entry--I thought I was having technical difficulties. I accept your point, that form of government is not relevant to this geographical table. I added the comment only because I saw "world's smallest republic" prominently featured in the Nauru article. Goustien (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Another issue is that if we add the world's smallest republic, we should add the smallest and largest of different political systems. Such information would not help the reader with the purpose of the article, which is country size. Regards, CMD (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chipmunkdavis! I want to know correct number of dependencies in the world (including CI/Niue, but excluding territories without international recognition as dependencies and territories that are considered to be an incorporated part of another country). Please help! User02062000 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no correct number. Dependent territories is a loose term covering a disparate assortment of political units. You need a set of criteria to get a number. Let's say that roughly, it mustn't be incorporated, according to the country with sovereignty over it, and it must have recognition of de facto control. That excludes Antarctic territories, places like Svalbard that the country claims are incorporated, and areas such as Bajo Nuevo bank which is claimed as a dependency but not controlled. It however includes areas such as the Falklands, where the British have clear and obvious de facto control, although it's legal sovereignty is disputed by some. Including CI/Niue, that gives us 3 from NZ, 1 from Norway, 16 from Britain, and 13 from the USA, or 33 altogether. This is a number if you want one, but it's not entirely helpful. Most of the USA's dependencies are basically tiny drops of land, and they're often simply grouped together, with the incorporated Palmrya atoll to boot. The British dependency of Guernsey actually has 2 dependencies of its own. Meanwhile, there's areas such as Greenland, Aruba, and French Polynesia, which legislatively have been incorporated in various ways, but have extreme levels of autonomy, and are very far from the primary portion of their parent state. The Aland Islands, and Hong Kong, also not included in the above number, have very high autonomy reinforced by an international treaty, but are adjacent to their parent state. Another case is areas like Bonaire and French Guiana, very integrated into the parent state, but very far away. One could perhaps, take it a step further, and include extremely autonomous areas integrated into their parent state, such as Mount Athos, although this is rarely if ever done. In the end the final number will depend on the definition used to establish it. CMD (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best approach to lists is to copy a list from a reliable source, cite the source and explain the criteria. For example, the list of members of the U.N. is valid. But preparing lists based on criteria we select ourselves is original research. TFD (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Unfortunately reliable sources have a habit of disagreeing with each other. It can be fun to conduct your own original research outside of wikipedia, which may be something User02062000 is interested in. CMD (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why the UN does not include some dependencies in its list of Non-Self-Governing territories?User02062000 (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The UN list is regulated by the Committee on Decolonisation and the UNGA, and so is determined by the politics of the various countries involved. CMD (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. This topic is about citizenships of different countries. I want to know answers on some questions. The questions are: 1) Are all people of dependent territories citizens of its mother country (for example, people of Wales or British Indian Territory are citizens of the UK, is it?) 2) Are all population of unrecognized and partially recognized states (excluding recognized UN members, of course) must be citizens of mother country? 3) Are Western Sahara population are citizens of any country? 4) How many citizenships are there in the world (add a note if you feel it necessary)? User02062000 (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) Most inhabitants of dependent territories have citizenship granted to them by their metropolitan state, although exact practices differ from place to place. Wales is part of the UK, not dependent, and there are no more inhabitants in the BIOT. 2) Unrecognised states tend to produce their own passport, but inhabitants often hold other citizenships as well. This could be the mother country, but it may also be another neighbour, such as Abkhazians holding Russian passports. 3) Western Sahara is mostly controlled by Morocco, so its inhabitants are mostly Moroccan. 4) Probably more or less the same number as there are countries, although some countries have different classes of citizens, and with the interesting addition of SMOM. CMD (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunk My Friend,

re: the United Nations article#membership section.

I believe Palestine is now in the same UN status as the Holy See (Vatican State) as a non-member permanent observer. Please see the article on permanent UN observer states. Why then, are we not going to recognize this?

What makes a state "fully recognized"? If it means recognition by all of the powerful states, then this gives these states unequal power and is not democratic. If, however it means all states recognize the state in question, then several are members of the UN which are not "fully recognized". Take for example the State of Israel recognized by only 160 of the UN members, only 28 more than the State of Palestine with 132. Which should be "fully recognized"? Just because the powers that be recognize Israel and they can get this voted by all Permanent Security Council members, they are a "fully recognized state". The other state is not and is banished from sight.

I was only attempting to show that, though recognized by the UN as a non-member permanent observer, the State of Palestine is not yet a member. But it should still be recognized as a "recognized" government by the UN, but not fully, as is Israel, Armenia, China, etc. which do not have recognition by all members.

Then the UN treats the Cook Islands and Niue as states capable of making international treaties and able to hold memberships in many international organizations. They have power to unilaterally declare independence. This means they are sovereign in their own right and are freely associated as is Monaco and Liechtenstein.

How can we show they are all "fully recognized", but not members? Can you suggest a way to make these states exist and not fade away into the netherworld? I can assure you Palestine and several others won't go away anytime soon and will be recognized in the future. We should show we are aware of these states, and their progress in this article in some way. What do you think?

Briefzehn 00:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Houle (talk • contribs)

The article does note Palestine is a UN observer, recognised as a state by the UN. Nowhere does it claim Israel has full recognition. The CI/Niue may be sovereign, but that doesn't make them states, because as you note they have yet to unilaterally declare independence. In the article of the UN, we include information pertinent to the UN. That information is already there. CMD (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunk,

You still have not convinced me. I was making note of the State of Palestine in the section on Membership where it notes "all fully recognized sovereign states" except the Holy See/Vatican. Though the article may mention Palestine elsewhere, it is deceiving not to mention it here as well using the statements put forth. It is all a matter of arbitrary rules from what I can see.

On the matter of the Cook Is. and Niue, they are states as the Wikipedia defines state as "A state is an organized community living under a unified political system, the government". If they have sovereign rights to make treaties and declare their independence and are by definition a state, then they are sovereign states and are recognized officially or unofficially by many UN members. I know you have a lot of questions like this but this is because your actions make you appear to be an expert. It is all clear as mud to me. Is there some way to clarify the article for simple folks to read?

Briefzehn 21:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Houle (talk • contribs)

I have not in any source seen the assertion that Palestine is a "fully recognised" state. It would in fact be far more deceiving to list it as one. Jersey is a an organised community with a unified political system. Sabah, Texas, and London are organised communities under a unified political system. A political body that has the right to declare independence, may choose to not do so, and thus choose to not become a full state, much like how referendums for independence can fail, as they did in Quebec. Such are the Cook Islands and Niue. I'm afraid that the Cook Islands and Niue situation doesn't get much clearer than mud. I'm not an expert, but I've learned a lot about the topic. Which bit of which article do you think is too complex and why? CMD (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I changed "fully recognized" to "undisputed" since I think Julien Houle's point about "What makes a state fully recognized" is a fair one. Also, I added a sentence listing the UNGA observers in the "Membership" section since I didn't see this information included anywhere else in the article. Perhaps this addressees the issue? TDL (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well changing it is a different kettle of fish to adding Palestine to it. I agree the question isn't a bad one at all, I merely disagreed on the solution. I don't have any objections to your change. CMD (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to explain for my muddled mind to understand with the complexities of "independence" and "recognition" in the world today. I do believe DLC has at least partially clarified the article with the changes made. I now can also see the State or Palestine DLC mentioned as an observer in the section. By the way, I know Cook I and Niue have not declared independence, however, they are included in the article for independent states as "other states" not UN members or observers and they both have no disputes. How do we reconcile this in the UN article? I saw where in one part a mention was made at the end of the section that both are considered by the UN as working states which are able to make treaties and join various UN agencies as states. They do take a little extra explaining as they are extraordinary cases. Thanks for your time. Briefzehn 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Houle (talk • contribs)

You're probably right; on the other hand I'm reasonably sure I have made statements to that effect on Azer/Arm pages. I don't comport myself well when frustrated with rambling people. :P --Golbez (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on the rewrite! It has desperately needed it for some time now, but I've avoided doing it myself due to the inevitable WP:IDHT debates that Ci/Niue issues tend to descend into. TDL (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't even a matter of removing bad sources. I just went with what was actually in sources that were already being used. It could still use more curation I'm sure; the last sentence seems fairly pointless. Dependent territories often have their own nationality and immigration procedures, and even some country subdivisions. CMD (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chipmunkdavis,

The Commonwealth of Nations is an "intergovernmental organisation of 54 independent member states", therefore not a state, consequently it has no relevance to the article about state leaders. Furthermore the link which I keep deleting and you keep re-adding is about the list of members of this organization (only 16 of which have the head of the organization as their head of state). And Elizabeth II is correctly listed under each Commonwealth realm as head of state in the List of current heads of state and government article, therefore a link to the membership of the Commonwealth adds no relevant information.

Could you please explain how you see this question?

ZBukov (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It verifies which 16 states have Elizabeth II as their heads of government. It's not a link, it's a reference, in line with our WP:V policy. CMD (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want it to be included as verification for who the head of state of all those countries are, than the consistent solution would be to add the websites of the presidential offices of every country. Without that it's just an arbitrary exception to include this source and not others. Furthermore if you want to verify the head of state of those 15 countries than a link to the government webpage of the affected countries would be more relevant. But all the heads of state and government are listed the UN protocol list (http://www.un.int/protocol/documents/Hspmfm.pdf) anyway, which makes the inclusion of this particular reference unnecessary. ZBukov (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be great if more sources were added! In the meantime, simply removing a source won't add to the article. At least at the moment a reader can comfort their suspicion that Elizabeth II is the head of state of Antigua and Barbuda by checking a reference. CMD (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the UN protocol list to the article as reference makes more sense as it includes all the states. And you don't seem to react to the argument that the reference you want added is about an organization, not a state. ZBukov (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference has information about all the states that are part of the organisation, that it has information about an organisation as well doesn't change that. There's no reason for the UN list to replace other references, although it could also be added. CMD (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The UN source is comprehensive unlike the Commonwealth source, which then renders the latter completely superfluous as there is no relevant piece of information in it which is not included in the UN list. ZBukov (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Commonwealth source also provided the background information for the footnote next to it. While we could base the majority of the article just off the one source, that should at least be discussed on the talkpage first. Would you mind reverting the source deletion you insist on edit-warring in? CMD (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can see on www.rulers.org or on www.worldsatesmen.org, in the sections about history of the Palestine, it is a State of Palestine, proclaimed in 15 Nov 1988 by Palestine Liberation Organization which remains ineffective but receives diplomatic recognition from some states) which has a own organization of the state and which has in common with Palestinian National Authority only the person of the president. Te Parliament is Palestinian National Council and the government of that is Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization. For PNA the Parliament is Palestinian Legislative Council and it is a government lead by a prime minister. On 29 Nov 201 2 Palestine represented by PNA obtained the status of non-member observer state status in the United Nations and in 6 Jan 2013 Palestinian Authority renamed itself State of Palestine (move not recognized by Israel). So, at this moment it is a big difference between the state of Palestine proclaimed By OEP, which has nor a prime minister nor an elected Parliament and State of Palestine which is the new name of PNA. Maybe in the future will be an unification between the two entities, but in present they are totally different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan Uleia (talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine was represented in the UN by the PLO, who declared the State of Palestine, not the PNA. You should post this, with sources perhaps, on the article talk page. CMD (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chipmunkdavis! Answer please, why does the Holy See not a member of the UN? Has it a plan to become its member? User02062000 (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's never applied. CMD (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)\[reply]

Why does the Vatican City is often considered a state, but the Holy See is an observer state in the UN? User02062000 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy See is the sovereign entity, and is legally separate from the Vatican. It is the Vatican however that is the territory required to qualify for statehood. By not making themselves identical to the territory they hold the Holy See portrays itself as an international entity for all Catholics, and creates continuity with the period before the Lateran Treaty of 1929. CMD (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But then why the Holy See is in a category 'Non-member states in the UN list? On all pages in Wikipedia the Vatican is considered a state, not the Holy See! Even on the website of the Vatican City it is considered a state, not the Holy See! Why the Holy See holds a STATE section in the UN, not international organization? Please explain! User02062000 (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because they applied to the UN under the name "Holy See". CMD (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain or show sources where mentioned that Holy See applies to the UN under its name, not Vatican City State! All sources say that Vatican City is a state, Holy See is only a sovereign entity controlling a state of Vatican! That is not logic if Holy See appears to the UN under name of international sovereign organization, not under the name of state they controlling? Please help! User02062000 (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are legal distinctions, but the Holy See and the Vatican City are entwined with each other. The Holy See is the entity that predominantly engages in foreign affairs, including diplomatic relations and membership in international organisations. CMD (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it, my question is 'Why the Holy See is considered a state in the UN? It can be considered an international organization, such as the SMOM! Please answer, why the Vatican City is internationally recognised and considered a state, but in the UN the state is Holy See, that is considered just a government of the Vatican? User02062000 (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because as noted above, the two are entwined, and it is the Holy See that conducts foreign affairs. The Vatican is not considered a sovereign state separately from the Holy See. CMD (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, why the Vatican City is considered a sovereign state on the List of sovereign states and the page about Vatican? There are so many pages where Vatican is the entity which is considered sovereign state, without any mention about the Holy See as a state! It is so unclear situation: all encyclopedias say that Vatican City State is a sovereign, while in the UN the Holy See is considered a state! You can see website of the Vatican, where mentioned that Vatican is an independent state, and there is no mention that Vatican City and the Holy See are entwined! Even the website of Vatican proves that Vatican is a state, but you say that Holy See is a state too, isn't it? I think the website of the Vatican City is the main source where the right information can be found! Then, Vatican is a state, not Holy See! And the Holy See holds observer state status. It is not logic, if Vatican website proves that Vatican is a state, while Holy See don't mention about that they are the state, and holds observer state status!!! Don't you think so? Please clear this unclear situation! User02062000 (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting this impression that it is the Vatican city that is internationally recognised and considered a state separately from the Holy See? I'm not saying that the "Holy See is a state too", I'm saying they're different aspects of the same state (hence entwined). The sovereign of the Vatican City is the Holy See. When conducting diplomacy, the Holy See does so as the Holy See, hence UN associate status. CMD (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You say that "they are different aspects of the same state". What is this state? I just want to know what name (Holy See or Vatican City) is an official name of the state? User02062000 (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both are official names. The Vatican is more closely associated with the territory, the Holy See with the diplomatic presence. Asking which one better represents the state is a complicated question with no correct answer. CMD (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I have one question: if you say that Holy See is more closely associated with diplomatic presence of state (but is used as one official name of the state, can you explain why in the article about Vatican City State I've found this: "The two entities have distinct passports: the Holy See, not being a country,..."??? How can you explain this words? They say that Holy see is not a country (or state)!!! But you ask me, "Where are you getting this impression that it is the Vatican city that is internationally recognised and considered a state separately from the Holy See?" We must either delete the proposition I've found, or you explain me your point of view! How you can explain it? User02062000 (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In isolation, neither has all the hallmarks of statehood. However, they aren't isolated. That statement makes some sense as it is drawing a distinction between the two, a distinction that is often glossed over. CMD (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have a conclusion for the end of discussion: The Vatican City is traditionally considered a state, while the Holy See is considered its government, but represent a traditional state in international organizations as a sovereign entity. If it is right (say me), the discussion would have a happy end! User02062000 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar and the UK may claim whatever they want, but what they cannot do is to change the Treaty of Utrech. The history cannot be rewritten according to what you would like it to be. So please read the Treaty of Utrech and inform yourself before introducing misleading information. Whether you like it or not, there are no maritime borders between any British Overseas Territory and Spain. Have a little bit of respect for History and for international treaties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flmtnez (talk • contribs) 13:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many pages say that Palestinian territories are under Israeli occupation. Then there is a conclusion that Palestine is not an independent country (even a lot of websites which try to answer how many independent countries are there in the world say that there are 193 UN members, Vatican and Taiwan). I don't argue that Palestine is not recognized by the UN, but it is not independent! User02062000 (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the opinion of a few European countries as well. Another conflict of de jure and de facto. CMD (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do read the article Hindu Nationalism and Akhanda Bharata. Hope u r not a pov pusher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.65.173 (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those articles mention, let alone source, that there's a proposed state merger between all the countries you mention. Per WP:V, wikipedia needs WP:Reliable sources. CMD (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chipmunkdavis! I have a question about international community: is it the same as the UN? User02062000 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The international community just means all states, it's a loose term. As the UN has grown to include basically all the worlds well-recognised states covering the entire human population, opinions decided there can easily be argued as the consensus among all states. CMD (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! But don't forget to answer me in the Vatican Section above, I have a new question there! User02062000 (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chipmunkdavis! I want to ask you about de jure and de facto states. Here are my questions (answer in this order): 1) Is de jure recognized means "recognised by the UN"? 2) Why in Vatican City article mentioned that "VAtican is smallest internationally recognised sovereign state"? Holy See is internationally recognised - it is a subject of international law, isn't it? User02062000 (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Hey Chipmunkdavis! Where are you? Answer please! User02062000 (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Why don't you answer me for a long time? Please be faster if you can! User02062000 (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away, my time on this talk page is volunteered, not owed. You should take questions on specific articles to those articles, and de jure means "by law", not recognised by the UN. CMD (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason for that wording in the states and dependencies of Oceania page. One thing is to say: "the Cook Islands have engaged with other states in diplomatic relations", which is a proven fact and describes a precedent. Another thing entirely is saying "they engage in diplomatic relations". We know they do, but since they have only engaged in such relations with a minority of states, this wording may suggest a larger degree of independence in their foreign affairs than they really have. In other words, it would lead to giving CI and Niue undue weight. Ladril (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see such implications in changing the tense of words. Even if these implications did exist, whether the Cook Islands are as diplomatically sparse as Bhutan or as engaged as the United States, it's the fact they can engage which is important. Still, it's a minor grammar point, so if you feel such implications exist than I'm happy to leave it as is. CMD (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Bhutan is "more established" as a sovereign state than the CI and Niue. Moreover, NZ still retains some responsibility for the international representation of these two, so their engagement in separate diplomatic relations is still in a nascent state. This is why the tense matters. Ladril (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chipmunkdavis!

My question for you is: Why do we consider CI/Niue as UN-recognized, but put them into such sections as "other states" etc.? And why does the Un general assembly haven't yet recognized CI/Niue as observers, if they are 'recognized'? User02062000 (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both the CI and Niue have been noted by the UN secretariat to have full treaty signing powers, which is something reserved for states. To become an observer in the UNGA, they would have to apply, and a resolution would have to pass according them such status. This has not happened. CMD (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we consider "internationally recognized states" only those states which hve already become UN members or observers? For those 9 states which sre not recognized, I agree with, but I think CI/Niue then mustn't be in section "other states" they must be among recognized! for example, in List of Sovereign states they are in other states section, and in countries of oceania list they have an unique section, while Palestine and Vatican have no separate section in such as List of sovereign states of Eurasia or Asia, or Europe. User02062000 (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We use UN members+observers as it's clearcut and easily sourced. You haven't provided any reasons for why you think CI/Niue are somehow more internationally recognised than Kosovo or the SADR, on par with Vatican and Palestine. Please read the archives at Talk:List of sovereign states. Chances are you'll find most ideas discussed there. It's imperfect in any situation, but the one we have is easy to source. CMD (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are CI/Niue have right for signing treaties and self-determination, but they have not use it yet? I think CI/Niue can't be described as sovereign countries because they have not used right for self-determination and there are only few states recognizing them (without their declaration or some other treaty). What do you think about? And also, my main question: does UN recognize CI/Niue independence? For example, I saw an article in French Wikipedia, and they consider CI/Niue to be sovereign states... and you can see that in lists of s.s. and dependencies by continent the sections named "recognized states" but in list of Oceanian countries sections named "member states of the UN" and "states not members..." which include CI and Niue respectively. i think we must either rename section "member staets" to "recognized states" and include or not CI/Niue, or we must create section "states with limited recognition" for CI/Niue as German Wikipedia does. Where are you? Answer please! User02062000 (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User02062000. I don't know why the governments of the CI/Niue have decided to maintain their current status, you'd have to ask them. As for the UN, the secretariat recognised their independent treaty-signing capability, but I an unaware of any UN votes on the mater. CMD (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chupmunkdavis. What do you think about current status of CI/Niue 'self-governing in free association': is it mean they're independent from New Zealand, or they say that they don't want to be fully independent, but don't want to be dependent from NZ? And then, why don't they had to ask UN to be its member or observer? Or why don't they ask NZ to be independent from then, and would it be, what's your opinion? What NZ thinks about their current status and wish they to change it? Please answer! User02062000 (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're very happy with their status as New Zealand citizens, and don't want to risk that link. NZ is clearly happy to keep it, perhaps from good will, perhaps it doesn't greatly affect them, or perhaps they feel bound by legal and/or moral obligations to support their former colonies (or a mixture). CMD (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I'll rename sections I've said above. User02062000 (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chipmunk. Thanks for not reverting my revision again (some people do things like that). If you happen to be interested in why the articles were incorrect in this particular instance I'll be happy to attempt an explanation. If not, then never mind of course. All the best, Tdls

Hey Tdls, you raised a good point about the inconsistency in your edit summary. I can see reasons for both options, with the "the" in front and without, but having some with and some without makes no sense. Thanks for contacting me, that was unexpected and appreciated. CMD (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. As I've seen, a lot of other Wikipedias include State of Palestine in "states with limited recognition". Yes, as you've said Israel or PRC have LR too. But in those wikis there is a note that Palestinian state is not fully exists yet. I've seen a lot of atlases, and all of them prefer "Palestinian territories", not "State of Palestine". Not only English atlases, but foreign too, including atlases published in countries which recognize Palestinian state. I think it is a propose to change Palestine status in wikipedia to "state with limited recognition" and then change it back to "recognized state" when it will be formed and established as a state like Israel, which occupies Palestine. Let me know what you think. User02062000 (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between a recognised state and one with limited recognition is the recognition. It makes no sense to argue that as something has not formed as a state, it is a state with limited recognition, because formation is also relevant to states of limited recognition. Palestine was moved based on the consensus as List of sovereign states to use UN Membership and Observer state status, positions obtained through the voting of a majority of states, as indicators of wide recognition. Palestine has obtained a position in the UN as an observer state. Arguing it is "not formed or established" is a tricky argument, as you have to think of other cases, like Somalia, which are perhaps even worse than Palestine (although Somalia has improved greatly recently). CMD (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But what about atlases? They all prefer name "Palestinian territories" instead of "State of Palestine". And all the map I've seen have a note that Palestinian territories are occupied since 1967 and state is now forming there. User02062000 (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That atlases are using a particular designation says nothing about the status of Palestine as a state other than that it's not fully accepted, which we already know. The Palestinian state has been hanging around for two and a half decades now, and in that time its acceptance and control has only increased.CMD (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I visited Russia and I'm interested in its politics. I know that Russia recognizes 197 states: UN members, Varican City, Abkhazia and S. Ossetia and State of Palestine. Also I bought some political world maps. I've seen thay're all show that: 1) Abkhasia and Ossetia are marked as sovereign states (Russia recognizes them, and it's sure); 2) Palestine is marked as "Palestinian territories", not the State of Palestine (and this is data of the latest maps, March or August 2013, when Palestine had already became observer) 3) All the maps have 6 notes including this (translation): "Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) were occupied by Israel in 1967. Nowadays palestinian self-governing process is going on". As you see, Palestine is recognized by Russia, meanwhile on the map it is showed as occupied territories. also you can see one russian document ("Общероссийский классификатор стран мира" in russian). The same article is on russian Wikipedia. Read it and you'll see a list of countries with its codes based on ISO 3166. However, in ISO standard Palestine have name "State of Palestine" while in russian document it has name "Palestinian territories, occupied". What can you say? User02062000 (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask the Russian wikipedia. Here, on this Wikipedia, we have decided that the line we have chosen to separate the two types of state is a UN vote. This makes the decision not ours, giving some objectivity. CMD (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what about maps and the document I've talked about? User02062000 (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're one viewpoint among many. CMD (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But can you explain why on the newest official russian (not matter) maps Palestine is considered occupied, while Russian government had recognized Palestine's independence few years ago? Why don't they use designation "State of Palestine" instead of "(occupied) Palestinian territories"? If the map is official it must satisfy the point of the government, which considers Palestine independent! Can you explain? User02062000 (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the Russian government. I don't speak Russian. I don't know how terminology translates. I'm unaware atlases are necessarily official publications in Russia. An independent area can be occupied at any rate. I can't explain each and every source; likely no-one can. I can explain maps I make, and explain the consensus we reached on en.wiki. CMD (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not matter is it Russian publication or not - I want to know why on the political maps of countries which recognize the Palestine it is showed as non-sovereign nation? How can it be - state recognizes another state as sovereign, and in the meantime the state is showed as not independent on the maps? Again, it is not matter, is it Russia or not. User02062000 (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many potential reasons. Perhaps mapmakers have their own opinion, separate to that of their government. Perhaps they have to actually put things in maps rather than look at recognition, as we do, and find this understandably complicated. At any rate, they don't say Palestine has limited recognition. CMD (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they don't. But they also don't say that Palestine is a state: they say that Palestinian state is now forming (I think it is why Palestine is showed as separate occupied territories and not showed as an independent, sovereign nation). Do you agree with map data? User02062000 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A state forming is not the same as a state with limited recognition. It all depends on what you consider a state. Palestine has limited, but growing, control on the ground (give or take full control on Gaza depending on your view), yet it has a fully developed international presence. CMD (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about limited recognition, I don't argue on the topic. I just want to know why Palestine is showed as forming, occupied and non-sovereign territories. I want to know exactly this point: why Palestine is showed as "occupied Palestinian territories " on every map and is considered a forming nation, not an independent State of Palestine, recognized by the country's government which regulates the standards for cartographers? For example, if country recognizes Abkhazia (for example) it is showed on every that country map as sovereign state without any note, while Kosovo, which isn't recognized (example again) is not showed as independent. Palestine is named "occupied Palestinian territories" with note on every map. Explain if you can. User02062000 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can only theorise, but it may be that they want to make the point that Israel is occupying land that they don't think Israel should be occupying. Occupied for has negative connotations, and in some cases in English, the phrase "Occupied Palestinian Territories" is used in a pointed manner to make Israel the 'bad guy', so to speak. Such connotations probably translate across into Russian as well as English, although I can't be certain on that note. CMD (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think they make the point that Israel now has a great control, especially military in Palestine, and independent Palestinian state is not marked as a state because it doesn't fully exists and it continues its forming process. Can it be? User02062000 (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. That raises the issues of when a state becomes a state of course, which is in all cases down to opinion. CMD (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then, Palestine could be presented as a non-state entity on maps because it is not fully exists as a state now and considered territories under Israeli-occupation, in which the future, independent and sovereign Palestinian state will exist. Is it a right consensus? User02062000 (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That depends completely on what you mean by exists as a state. Palestine has a government, has areas under its direct control, and has a large international presence. Was Iraq not a state under US occupation? CMD (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Iraq was always marked as a state on the map because it was already formed state, while Palestine is considered there not only occupied, but also not fully created yet. Then it is marked as two separate territories (West Bank and Gaza) and the note says that Palestine is not fully created now and it will be established in international community when Arab-Israeli conflict will be finished. Again, every map shows Palestine as such. Or you've seen any map where you can see Palestine called "State of Palestine", but not "Palestinian territories"? User02062000 (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "not fully created yet"? That's entirely a matter of opinion. As for it being shown as two separate territories, of course it is. They are two separated territories. Most maps similarly mark Alaska and French Guiana. I very much doubt that note is on "every" map. I haven't seen a map with "State of Palestine" (rarely do longform names every appear), but I have seen maps with "Palestine". CMD (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But most maps marks them as "Palestinian territories", and again, they note that state creating process goes on, i.e. that state hasn't its own military forces (only paramilitary) and some other aspects of being a state. I don't argue that Palestine is shown as 2 territories (US or France are shown as such too), I argue that these territories are shown as only territories, but not sovereign state. User02062000 (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Palestinian territories are a generally well-defined and agreed geographical area. The borders of the Palestinian state are widely acknowledged to be under debate. It's simpler for a mapmaker to show the former. There's also no reason territories can't be part of a state. CMD (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but then why mapmakers define the geographical area, not a sovereign state located in it? User02062000 (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't read their minds, but they're mapmakers, they map geographical areas. CMD (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the map is physical. But on political world maps they must map boundaries of states or their dependencies. Palestine is a state now. Then, why do mapmakers show the boundaries of areas on which the state is situated? It seems to be not correct. But mapmakers have a cartographic base and they surely know the topic better than us. But can you assume, why do they show areas where the state is situated, but not the name of that state itself (i.e. State of Palestine)? User02062000 (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Here you are a phrase from page Palestinian territories: "The international community regards the West Bank as territories occupied by Israel." User02062000 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because as I said before, the borders of the Palestinian state are very complicated. Palestine directly controls very little area, but claims a lot more. Israel seems to nominally agree, but disagrees with the claimed borders. I'm well aware the area is noted as occupied territory, but that is because it's seen as the territory of the Palestinian state. CMD (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But when Palestine will become fully recognized UN member state, do you think that mapmakers will continue showing Palestine as territories, but not a state? I don't think so. Also, please show me or give any web link to map where you saw Palestine marked as "State of Palestine", if you can... User02062000 (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what mapmakers will do. Given the current position of the USA, the border situation will be resolved before Palestine membership makes it past the UNSC, so it will be much easier to map. As I said, I've never seen the label "State of Palestine", as that's a rare formal name. I have seen Palestine, but don't have an example on hand. It's definitely far more common to see it labelled as the Palestinian territories, but the word choice during mapping isn't directly congruent with a list of states. CMD (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then, you want to say that in near future Palestine will be labelled as Palestine on the maps, not Palestinian territories? If yes, explain when and why. User02062000 (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what will happen to maps. Each map company is different, and every mapper will have a different opinion. Possibly if Israel recognises it with borders, it will become more common, but aside from that, I don't know. CMD (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But why do mapmakers label the Palestinian territories without a notification that there is situated State of Palestine? They only write that these territories are occupied and there is an ongoing process of Palestinian self-governing formation. You say the state is already formed, then why it is even on the newest (2014) maps? I've seen a lot of 2013 and some 2014 maps in different countries and languages, but is still so... User02062000 (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said that whether the state has formed is down to opinion. Again, I do not know the thoughts of these mapmakers. It's probably easier to be cautious in updates. CMD (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do mapmakers consider Palestine a sovereign state while mapping it as Palestinian territories? What do you think? User02062000 (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dare to fathom the minds of professional mapmakers. CMD (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. And this much of a change in an article by one user, without consensus, is acceptable? Best regards. --212.174.190.23 (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason why historically it is called the annexation of Texas. I have never heard of the annexation of East Germany, nor the annexation of one part of Yemen by the other. Those were state mergers. At the same time you never hear of the merger of countries to form the Soviet Union, but of annexation such as of theBaltic republics. But, this page is in the hands of a bunch of people with fanciful ideas, as you yourself have made clear in edit summaries. You have also previous rejected other inclusions on the basis of their being annexations and not merders. But guess what - this page survives only for the simple reason that no serious editors ever take an interest in it. I come around once in a while and delete half of the pending mergers between Portugal and Spain and the like. So, without any input from any serious editors (if anyone else joins in it will be the nuts that see mergers around every corner) I see no reason for wasting my time here. For your information, even from the US side it NOT a merger, not even a proper legal annexation, as the whole thing was shrouded in lies and cover-ups with congress knowing very little of what was going on. But I am sure that differences aside, we can work together on comabting the nuttier proposals. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis, As you seem to show keen interest in this page, why not create an additional column for the mergers that fell apart? There is plenty of white space in the "Notes" column that would easily allow for an additoinal column. The eye is a strange animal - it will glance down the page looking at the pink/ green outcomes and very few people will read the note alongside. Just an idea. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up that page numerous times, and agree it tends to fill with crap, but I don't think Texas is a case of that. Even with the lies and coverups and various political wranglings in the USA, it was in the end something agreed to by both parties, and in addition, supported by the populace of the smaller party. There were two states that became one without military intervention. There's a fuzzy line between merger's and diplomatic annexations, and in language it seems down to the relative sizes of the countries. In many cases there's little difference. Take Germany for example, no new reformed political structure was formed; East Germany was simply absorbed into West Germany, taking on West German laws etc. This has come up recently with the Nazi murder laws still in place in Germany, due to West German law. This is very different than say, the union of England and Scotland, which maintained separate systems for many government functions, or the proposed Cypriot union, which envisions a new federal structure. (As an aside, I have heard of South Yemen being annexed, as I think this is wording promoted by those supporting South Yemen secession.)

It's an interesting suggestion, although it seems potentially undue. Only a limited number of proposals actually go through, and the new column would only be relevant to those. I think on balance I like your idea, although I'd be unsure of what to do with Malaysia in that column! CMD (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Azad Kashmir Claim is already present. Claim of Jammu is not based on facts and not supported by any fact/actual happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.251.62.12 (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. The entirely former Kingdom is disputed. CMD (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chipmunkdavis, I just want to clarify the proposed state mergers. So, you said Canada and Australia couldn't qualify as they were not independent. These territories did become independent after the mergers, but they weren't before that. If Canada and Australia can't be on here I would like you to clarify why the West Indies Federation is included, even though it wasn't previously independent. Thank you. Viller the Great (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point User:Viller the Great. Does combining colonies count as a state merger? I don't really think it does. State mergers are notable for the union of two independent entities into one, subsuming them both. Colonies already have a sovereign power above them. After that, the weird case of Greece and the Ionian islands. One of those is a state and one isn't. Not really a merger. CMD (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does make sense that colonies are not independent states and therefore they don't voluntarily merge on their own, but if they become independent, I guess it all depends. Like Greece and the Ionian Islands, wouldn't that be more of an annexation? I guess we are all going to have to agree what a "state merger" is. Many of them could qualify as annexations I suppose as well. Viller the Great (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greece and the Ionian islands was one country, the UK, ceding land to another. State merger to my mind brings forth the idea of sovereign states merging. If there is more scope, I'd still argue the lists should at least be separated. I think I'll bring this up on the main talkpage. CMD (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good idea, that example you gave was indeed a cessation, well we could say annexation, by Greece, but it was given by the British. This is something that should be debated with other fellow editors. Viller the Great (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chipmunkdavis. I think, it would be nice idea to put the sub-headings to "Northern Cyprus-History" part.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alex, I replied on the talkpage. CMD (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at Talk:Republic_of_Crimea_(country)#Independent_or_Russian. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman, please see Talk:List of states with limited recognition#Crimea. Regards, CMD (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I added the following to Northern Cyprus:

Because of lack of international recognition for Northern Cyprus as a distinct entity, the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code "CY" is used for the whole of the territory controlled by both the Republic of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus.

which you reverted with the edit summary:

Rv ISO, don't see how that information is particularly notable with regards to this article.

The ISO 3166 codes are used in a lot of commercial applications. For example, right now I'm mapping country codes to default currencies for the entire world. In general, any entity that uses Template:Infobox Country shows the ISO 3166 code in that box. I think I would be reverted if I just put "iso3166code=CY" in the infobox, because that applies to more than Northern Cyprus. The situation with Northern Cyprus is confusing, so I think it is quite helpful to people who care about ISO codes (mostly because they have to use them) to have an explanatory note on this article. I'm happy to move it to the infobox, but the syntax for iso3166code right now doesn't really allow that. That's why I put the note in the article text. -- Beland (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While ISO codes are of course useful where they exist, I don't think their absence needs to be noted in areas they are absent in. If Northern Cyprus isn't a defined ISO area, they won't have the code. I think you're right that CY is wrong, as CY applies to a much wider area. It'd be odd to say CY was the code for any particular subarea of Cyprus. Surely anyone curious about ISO codes can find all this information out at ISO 3166-1 alpha-2?

Currency sidetopic sounds interesting, but surely as currencies already have their own ISO codes there's little added utility to mixing and matching country codes? CMD (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Northern Cyprus is not listed at ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, but it's politically not part of Cyprus (which is listed), so Northern Cyprus seems like a logical place to go to get the code (since it's always in the infobox). In fact, that's where I was looking for it.

With regard to currency, the problem I'm solving is: given any address anywhere on the planet, which currencies will be accepted there? It's definitely not a 1:1 mapping. In most cases, all you have to do is map the ISO 3166 country code to one or more ISO 4217 currency codes. In Cyprus, there are two currency zones, one for the Republic and one for Northern Cyprus. So, I needed to know the country code for both parts in order to make my system work (and realize I can't rely on country code alone). -- Beland (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ISO lists we have are probably very complete, so if there is a country code that isn't on ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 I'd be surprised. With regards to currency, you're going to have large issues with most unrecognised states, as they aren't accounted for in the ISO system. There's a special Taiwan one at least. CMD (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's why I was trying to add a note about the ISO country code in articles on unrecognized states. -- Beland (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen any external source discussing breakaway states to mention ISO codes one way or another. In the grand scheme of things, they're probably of little importance to all involved in those disputes. CMD (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I proposed the deletion for the article Venetian Republic (2014), because actually the referendum was an online survey without official data about the participation. There are not valid reasons to consider it as an unrecognized state. Could you confirm the proposal? Thank you in advance.--Ghepa90 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Ghepa90. If you want to propose it for deletion, read through WP:AFD and follow the steps there. That will create a dedicated page to discuss the deletion. Regards, CMD (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Ghepa90 (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact it is your personal opinion of preference and not a consensus not to use Sodacan's new SVG, calling another user's work "ugly" (especially a work by one of our most prolific contributers) is really out of line and I'm sure you know it. Please have the decency not to say that again. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your belief, the svg/png issue has been discussed before (it's in Talk:Australia/Archive_16 now), and the png was preferred. I have no dislike of the svg, it's simply that the svg is quite obviously greatly simplified compared to the png. Furthermore, if someone is upset at a side by side comparison of images, they shouldn't be making them. I hope Sodacan is not as easily offended by plain language as you seem to be. CMD (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not contrary at all, that conversation took place in 2010, that was years before Sodacan created their image which they only uploaded yesterday, and dealt with an inferior file which was renamed to use lower case, and the redirect was deleted by Sodacan using the old name with the upper case "Arms". And no, I'm not offended, I'm bothered that you would refer to anyone's work as "ugly" as an argument not to use it. You know better. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the general idea of a higher quality png being preferred to an svg, which that discussion established. I'm aware of both the old svg and the superior new one. The new one is infinitely better, but still not as good as the png. I said "uglier" rather than "ugly"; it was a relative comparison rather than absolute. You may say that's semantics, but all the word was was a concise way of saying "the quality of the detail of the svg is not as good as the quality of detail of the png". Picture quality is an argument for usage. CMD (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe that a discussion can apply to images that don't even exist until 4 years later, perpetually? That's ridiculous, a new consensus would be required to lock out this new image. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, it doesn't work that way. As the change to the new image has been reverted (twice now) the WP:BURDEN is on the editor seeking to add the new image. Please see WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO.

@Chipmunkdavis: - Just an FYI, Sodacan has been changing all instances of File:Australian Coat of Arms.png, including use on archived talk pages in posts made by other editors, which is a violation of WP:TPG. I found 17 cases dating back to July 2013. I'm mentioning it here because one of the changes was to Talk:Australia/Archive 16, which you've mentioned above. I've now fixed that so it reflects the original discussion, and warned the editor. Please also note that there is a discussion about this on my talk page as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: Consensus works both ways and you seem to have been ignoring the other part of it. You can't argue that there's no consensus for keeping the old image as an argument for inserting the new image. There's just as little consensus for replacing the old image.

@AussieLegend: Ah, that explains the odd situation with two svgs on the Australia archive. I assume Sodacan is just mass replacing both the png and the old svg. CMD (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than a little concerned about use of Global Replace. It seems to me that because of its power it should be like AWB in that you should have to be authorised to use it. I had to revert 6 posts in addition to the 4 you did today. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a reasonable suggestion. Much like twinkle. CMD (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a test I downloaded Global Replace and set it to replace the SVG with the PNG version. The tool is fully automated. Unlike other tools it starts and goes on its merry way. The only input that you have to supply is the old filename, the new filename and an optional edit summary followed by pressing the Start/Stop button. I managed to stop after one file but in the hands of a vandal I shudder to think what could happen. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is usually fixable. Far more complicated would be an attempt to push one of two disputed images, say maps. If both are used separately in various places, you couldn't globalreplace back. That would be a massive headache (I've actually seen it be done manually before, by some who are very dedicated to single issues). I think I'll bring this up in a bit if you don't. Unfortunately it's a commons tool and I'm less familiar with where it would be raised there. Presumably that talkpage, and they probably have a village pump of some sort. CMD (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily see a vandal replacing the image of a public figure with something detrimental, something made much easire with Global Replace. While it's a commons tool, all Wikipedias can make their own rules and banning its use here if it causes problems would be an issue for this Wikipedia. I too am not sure of the procedure on commons. I did discover commons:Commons:Transition to SVG which says "PNGs should not just be replaced en masse the instant an SVG replacement becomes available. It is often sufficient to label the image description page with a ((vector version available)) tag, and it will be migrated over to the SVG version by editors where appropriate." Despite this, en masse changes seem to be exactly what these editors have done. I'm tempted to use Global Replace to restore all uses of the PNG with "Inappropriate en masse change per Commons:Transition to SVG" as the edit summary. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has an administrators' noticeboard at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. It turns out that it's not just the COA that has been changed. File:Australian Coat of Arms shield.PNG has been replaced by File:Shield of arms of Australia.svg and the now unused PNG has been nominated for deletion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Australian Coat of Arms shield.PNG. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently User:‎Benuminister believes that the Principality of Sealand should be on the List of sovereign states in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Apparently what I'm saying is not getting to him, and I need some source of reason to back me up. —SPESH531Other 03:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't forget 2010s. It's controversial to claim it as a sovereign state I know but by the definitions of a sovereign state held here on wikipedia. This is based on the declarative theory so it has to meet the following. 1) a defined territory (their platform out in the English Channel) ; 2) a permanent population (last recorded population put it at 22 members); 3) a government (it has a king and queen as well as other members who contribute to its daily functions) and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states (this can be done by even local governments). I agree it is only however a defacto independance though since, as of 1987, it falls in British territorial waters. due to a court local court ruling it enjoys a legal loophole however which has yet to be challenged by the British authorities.Benuminister (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]