Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe/Archive 4

Moving the page

The requested move has closed with a unanimous decision to move the page and therefore the other continent pages as well. When the article is moved, the talk page will be moved too but the archives will not, can somebody who knows about archiving please fix up the red links on the talk page?

There is, however, a small obstacle in the way to moving the page. There's no move tab appearing for me. There's a move tab on every other page and this talk page, but something must be preventing this article from moving. Does anyone have any idea what is going on? McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a move tab appearing for me. Not sure what's wrong with your browser. Has it happened before? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, not that I can remember. Can you please move the page then? McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we get an admin to do it? They can move archives at the same time. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you know an admin that will actually do something you ask them to, OK. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the talk page and fixed the archiving. Could you please move the article now? McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if I've missed something, but I think Mclay1 probably caught everything before I got here. TFOWR 09:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Åland and Svalbard

Now the page has been modified to 'List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe' it's now incorrect to list these 2 entities since they're neither dependent territories nor sovereign states.

Unless there's any problems, I'll remove these 2. --Richardeast (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You supported the inclusion of Svalbard before. I think they deserve a mention on this list, due to their unique political statuses (defined by an international agreement, not by an internal domestic agreement). They fit well within the header they are under now anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether I believe they deserve a mention or not is irrelevant. The bases for listing is whether they are either a sovereign state or a dependent territory, not whether they have a unique political status - Unless of course you're advocating that countries which fall into neither of these categories but are in a unique constitutional position should also be listed... --Richardeast (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am prepared to support an exception in their case. Although as i said before if this causes a problem with the potential inclusion of British countries then i will support their removal. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether you're 'prepared to support an exception' or not is largely irrelevant, just as the debate about their inclusion is irrelevant to your opinion about listing the countries which form the UK. We made a decision, as a community, that this article is only to list sovereign states and dependent territories - it's not for us to decide which entities are somehow benign enough that an exception can be made while we ignore others which we feel are somehow malignant to our beliefs. If they're a sovereign state or dependent territory in Europe we'll list them - otherwise we don't. Only if sovereignty is disputed or the state is partially recognised will we need to use our judgement. --Richardeast (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

British Watcher -why did you undo my change and put them back in? Clearly neither of these two are a Sovereign state and it specifically states in the Dependent territory article that they "are not considered dependencies, as they are considered full part of their controlling state". Kindly don't re-revert it back unless you have a source of evidence that contradicts this! --Richardeast (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You need consensus before removing it from the article, at the moment two people say its ok to remain and you object. So the stable version has to remain until there is agreement to change it. If the consensus is to remove, i am fine with that, but wait for agreement. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

British watcher - I see despite not providing any sources to backup your logic that they should be included and despite me specifically requesting you don't - you've gone ahead and undid my work thus adding them in.

McLerristarr said during the move debate I agree that Svalbard and Aland should be removed. while it states in the Dependent territory article (and I quote) A number of political entities have a special position recognized by international treaty or agreement, such as Åland in Finland, Hong Kong & Macau in the People's Republic of China, and Svalbard in Norway. These are not considered dependencies, as they are considered full part of their controlling state. Similarly, although dependencies retain a degree of autonomy, not all autonomous entities are considered to be dependencies..

All I'm doing is ensuring this article is as accurate as possible given the new title - and unless you're claiming them to be either a Sovereign state or a Dependent territory (or you have verifiable sources do you have which warrant their inclusion which either contradicts the Dependent territory or Sovereign state articles) then what grounds do you have to possibly want to cause a dispute about their listing? --Richardeast (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's go at this another way. How did they fit under the previous title but not under this one? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The pre-change title was European countries and territories - after the objections were raised by some who, for reasons best known to themselves, didn't want to list of the countries that form the UK the title was changed to sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. There's now a totally different listing criteria which means the article is incorrect keeping them on! If you're unsure of the difference, please read the articles....

p.s. I see you decided to once again follow BritishWatcher and re-add them back in without proving a shred of evidence why they should be included! Maybe you would be so kind to tell the community what evidence you have which makes you feel they're either a Sovereign state or a Dependent territory (please remember verifiable sources)! --Richardeast (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

when there is disagreement the status quo must stand until there is agreement for change. I am ok with them being removed if that is what the majority want but you need to wait for agreement. We changed the article title, the title does not have exactly reflect the contents. For example List of countries by GDP (nominal), includes territories and even the European Union. These two entities we are debating here do not appear on those lists, and i do not think they appear on most others either so there is a case for removal, but it needs consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that they should not be included. They are not dependent territories, they are integral parts of their respective countries. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Svalbard and Aland should be removed from the list. Neither one is a sovereign state or a dependent territory. Daicaregos (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok they should be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

From the info I can easily obtain, I'd guess that Svalbard should be included. It is outside Schengen, governed by a treaty, residence there does not give rights to reside in Norway (no naturalization after xxx years etc [1][2]), so it is doubtful if it can be called part of Norway-proper; at least being there is not considered being in Norwegen-proper.... The statement that it is not considered a Dependent territory in Dependent territory is not sourced and the only source available in the article lead [3] links to a page [4] which lists Svalbard... as a dependency. L.tak (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Svalbard's not a dependency per se, which is why it is suggested removing it from the article. I disagree that the content needs to completely follow the title though, as that leaves very little room for movement. Both Aland and Svalbard I think are notable enough to be included in such a list, but if the majority of editors feel the need for complete conformity then they technically don't belong. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually you have a point about the lists. First thing I could find on a google search includes Aland and Svalbard [5]. Would that merit their inclusion? The CIA does too [6]. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I just did a long, detailed explanation about Svalbard and Aland, filled with, what I consider useful insights intertwined with light humour... only for Wiki to delete it all because of a conflict! ffs! I'll just give the sources and leave it at that this time.

"According to the Svalbard Treaty, Norway has sovereignty over Svalbard with restrictions that ensue from this. Svalbard is a full value part of Norway; it is not autonomous and is neither a municipality nor a county. "[7]

"In June 1921 the league made its decision: Finland was to have sovereignty over Åland and the self governing law from 1920 should be broadened with additional guarantees." [8] --Richardeast (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh. Well, I always copy my writing before i click any buttons in case. Couldn't you have just copied it from the changed text that shows under the editing box when you receive a conflict?

As for Aland and Svalbard, I'll sum up their status for others. They are areas which form first-level administrative division in Finland and Norway respectively. Aland was part of the Land conquered from Sweden by Russia, and upon Finnish independence they wanted to be part of Sweden, something Finland did not want. Eventually the league of nations declared it to be Finnish, with the restriction that Finland never use it for military purposes, that the Swedish language be protected, and that it remained under the control of native Alanders. Svalbard was a terra nullis for most of history. When Norway became independent from Sweden in 1905 it looked for a way to assert its newfound sovereignty, and disputed the effective control of the islands from Sweden among other countries. Eventually this was settled with the Svalbard Treaty, which stated that the islands were Norweigian, but they could not be militarized, and gave some other signatories special rights in the islands, such as the right to mine there. The League of Nations decision and the Svalbard Treaty remain effective today.

There's the summary. Hope that helps. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a clarification on what the regions are and how this all developed. The thing we need to know to determine if they constitute a dependent territory is a clear definition for that. Dependent territory is too poorly referenced to do so and also (maybe necessarily) too soft in its definitions to use as a guide. I realized when thinking about the excluded group at dependent territory, that they all have 1 thing in common: politically it is considered undividable from the main country and maybe that's a governing difference: the others are old-colonies/protectorates and have according to practice (international law?) the right of independence if they which so. For the others there is treaty (Aland, Svalbard) or a very clear policy (Hongkong, Macao) that it isn't. Can someone judge (better: substantiate) if I am right on this hidden criterion? If so, Svalbard and Aland are indeed not dependent territories and we return to the discussion whether they should add them as an exception or not... L.tak (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the question we need to ask ourselves is, if they were not just politically but physically attached to their respective nations (such as Alsace) would we be having this discussion? There's plenty of Islands which have international treaties over them which span centuries - shetland, Crimea and Lampedusa to name just 3 of dozens... why have we made an exception for these 2? --Richardeast (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What International agreements do the shetlands and lampedusa have that deal with their soveriengty? This is something I would like to know! As for Crimea (not an island ;) ) the agreement relates only to a single area, a military base. This is probably comparable to the US base on Diego Garcia, an issue of extraterritoriality, nothing more. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes! I definitely will do in the future! but back to the subject, I'm not too sure what the point you're arguing though - are you saying that they're in fact not considered an integral part of their respective countries and thus can be classed as dependent? I'd disagree, after all, they both vote in their respective nation's presidential elections [9] [10] and although there's various international treaties which makes their situation interesting - IMO it's not really much more interesting than say, Campione d'Italia. As GoodDay says, if they don't fit, they shouldn't be in --Richardeast (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Do, it helps immensely ;) Anyway, my above post was just a summary of the status of both, for others. My position is that they are definitely interesting and notable, their sovereignty under the countries being in face decided by other countries in an international agreement. Campione d'Italia is just an Italian exclave, also interesting, but then again not especially notable politically. There are plenty of those. There however seem to be only 4 areas like Aland and Svalbard, those two along with Hong Kong and Macau. And yes, I also am in great love for GoodDay's thoroughly explained and sweeping statements ;) Maybe we should define an inclusion criteria for him! Actually, that'd be a good idea. I'll try to make one and post it to the top of this talk page when the discussions resulting from the move wind down. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

--Chipmunkdavis, you accidently deleted my entry; edit conflict ;-)-- reposting:

What I am saying is that the problem is not our understanding of what Svalbard is; the problem is what a dependent territory is. Voting rights may yet be another criterion, but that is also not the most governing factor (Saint Martin can vote I believe, but still is a dependent territory). So we need a clear definition. I am struggling there and the criteria I intuitively applied (my first post) would merit inclusion. When looking at what the exceptions in dependent territory have in common, I'd think the hidden criterion of acceptability of independence is applied. So what we need is a well-sourced definition we can apply! Any outcome based on such a definition would be ok to me... L.tak (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes! you're 100% right - it's all about the definition we use. (and sorry about the late reply – I’m really busy at work at the moment). Taking France for an example (where I live) they consider the overseas departments (currently 4 & the generic 'collectivities' of smaller islands) to be as integral to France as the métropolitaine departments. People born there full voting and citizenship rights with representation in the National Assembly & Senate in Paris and it must specifically be stated if a law doesn't apply to the DOM-TOMs rather than the other way round. People living in the French half of St. Martin are considered no less French than someone in l'Hexigon and St. Martin itself directly elects a senator! Most French would I’m sure argue that, apart from a few uninhabited rocks, the only really dependent territory of France is New Caledonia.

I think here there's a risk that we're looking for any bit of land not connected to the mainland and calling it a dependent territory – which was fine when we were listing territories but with the new title cannot always be correct. I'd argue the key difference between a dependent territory and just another part of the country is a dependent territory is only an entity that is political separate from the parent country (such as Jersey... but not, say Majorca) but who're from one reason or another are not considered a full UN state. Being physically connected or not is, in many ways, irrelevant. The legislature of the parent country does not govern the territory, it's simply relied upon for assistance within key pre-agreed areas (usually defence and foreign affairs). Although there's a legislature who controls pre-agreed devolved area in Åland, I’m not convienced there’s much difference between that and the Welsh Assembly...ultimate sovereignty is retained by Helsinki– Svalbard simply has an unelected administrator appointed by Oslo who, again, considers itself soverign. I'd argue both of these are just territories of their respective parent countries and if they're listed.... so should Wales! ;) --Richardeast (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Damn you realised my secret planOh, whoops. Massive apologies! Thank goodness for wikipedia history.

Having wrote that definition on the article myself, I'm not sure if I could objectively say it was right or wrong, but let me say that googling for it brought up nothing specific and lots of conflicts. Lists of dependent territories included many varied and different entities. The current list on the article is the most trimmed down one. I'm actually thinking of expanding it with another section for areas like Aland and Svalbard, which are often included, however erroneously. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I was googling myself today and also didn't come up with a clear definition; nor did I see a source stating both Aland and Svalbard, (and maybe hongkong etc) are not dependent territories. These assertions come mainly from Norway and Finland themselves. I think for our list that is not enough criterion for exclusion. We need to come up with a definition and then act upon it. Only then GoodDay's filosofical statement (which I like as it is somewhat Cruyffian) provides an easy solution.L.tak (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's all got to be based around politics too - i.e. if citizens are entitled to vote for the primary legislature of its respective country - and that they're represented in that parliament.... then they can be considered an integral part of that country - Otherwise, they're not an integral part of the parent country and therefore listed as dependent territory? ::::::::::::: An example as stated above, French overseas territories elect members to the Paris Assembly and Senate just as any other part of France... while people in Jersey, Guernsey or IoM are not represented by MPs in London - so I would argue Saint Martin is not a dependent territory while J, G or IoM are. --Richardeast (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Greenland and the Faroes have representation in the Danish parliament, places like the Falklands and Gibraltar have representatives in the UK parliament (although I'm unsure whether they vote). They are not integral. French territories do not elect representatives like areas of the "French Republic" considered integral, the departments and regions. I mean, for a start, most (if not all) are not part of the EU, as the Crown dependencies are not part of the EU, as the Faroe islands and Greenland are not part of the EU. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, I don't think discussing French territories will get us that far. Back on topic, dependency or not, they are definitely an area of special sovereignty. Aland got into the EU through a special referendum and agreement. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course they do! the DomToms are as integral to the French Republic as any other part of France[11].... just using Reunion as an example, they elect three representatives to the French Senate and four to the National Assembly, they use the French constitution & full legal system. People born there are French/ EU citizens and EU citizens can move there without restrictions. It was actually the first part of the world to start using the Euro... despite being in the middle of the Indian Ocean (if you look at the back of the euro note, bottom left corner you'll see it next to Guyane).

While I've heard there used to be an MP for Calais, I've never known one for Falklands - and even as a UK citizen, it'll be hard if you wanted to settle there - Ironic you have freedom of movement to live in Guadeloupe, a French Island - but it's near neighbour Montserrat, a UK territory, you don't!

Alas, back to the point, I've been doing as much reading as I can and I've changed my mind.... I think you're right about Aland! - it is a special case and on the face of it I'd say you're correct and the dependent territory & Åland Islands pages are wrong - despite Finland's claims, it's not an integral part of Finland... there are still active treaties which the Helsinki government cannot overturn so by definition Finland's not fully 100% sovereign- thus it can't be an integral part of Finland so should be listed as a dependent territory! --Richardeast (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the territories, like Saint Martin, not the DOM's, but no matter. (I'm interested in what websites you used to get information, good research! If you could bring those over to the Dependent territory page that good be useful!). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If Aland & Svalbard don't fit this article inclusion criteria? then they should be deleted.GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-recognised states (2)

There are a number of entities listed on this page which now may not belong - I personally feel given the somewhat tighter listing rules we should not include either disputed territories or non-recognised countries - since by definition, they are, at best only only partially sovereign (i.e. de-facto, but defiantly not de-jure). Disputed territories like Kosovo are themselves made up from areas like North Kosovo (which are de-facto independent from other parts of Kosovo, so if de-facto independence is enough to warrant listing possibly should be included themselves!).

Can someone please make the case for why we should continue to list disputed states? Possibly one solution would be to list only sovereign states recognised by an external body (such as the UN or ISO3166). --Richardeast (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Unrecognized states listed in this page are for the most part de facto independent from the country they are usually considered de jure part of. Furthermore, they consider themselves de jure sovereign, as probably do most of the people in them! The distinction is made in the article, and explained there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether the are sovereign because they claim de facto independence is, in many ways purely subjective. Look at North Kosovo, there can be no disputing that they are essentially de facto independent from the rest of the territory and if this is the pure bases for listing there will be numerous examples across Europe[12]. If we are to list one or two, surly we must list them all without moderation and political bias?

On the sovereignty page, it states that a State refers to the set of governing and supportive institutions that have sovereignty over a definite territory and population. - just taking Kosovo as an example, can you tell me, what is the definite territory and population Kosovo has sovereignty over to fall into this category? --Richardeast (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo's territory is currently as defined as Serbia's is. As for population, they have their own passport! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Chipmunk, please answer the question and supply sources to back up your argument... what definite territory and population Kosovo has sovereignty over?! --Richardeast (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking me to find a source that shows Kosovo has a territory and a source saying Kosovo has a population? If you are, the CIA world factbook has a map and a population number [13]. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You have a case on the two territories in the above section, but under no circumstances are we going to be removing the disputed sovereign states from this article. If you have a problem with this matter, please take it up List of sovereign states. If there is agreement there to remove disputed sovereign states, then i will support there removal here. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

BW, you yourself would surly agree, if a country does not fall into either of the 2 categories, they should not be listed? If you want to open the door to exceptions, I'm happy to go down that path with you, but I thought you whole point of the rename was so we would not fall into this hole? --Richardeast (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to the territories which are not dependent territories and do not get included in most lists you have a point. But we are following the practice throughout wikipedia lists of including disputed sovereign states although rightly they are shown in a different section or with italics. We should be working from List of sovereign states, if they choose to list disputed states on that page, we should continue to here. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This title says sovereign state, Kosovo is a disputed sovereign state. It does have control of an area and a population and it has recognition as a sovereign state from many western nations. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You think? There are parts of Kosovo which the de-facto rulers have no control over thus meaning it fails Wiki's own definition of sovereign... But my point was a more subtle one, if 'de-facto' sovereignty is enough to be listed here and we can disregard completely De jure sovereignty - then there's a whole array of entities which we'll need to list; Republika Srpska, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina possibly Kurdistan, even Serbian Krajina have an exile government; or, (you may like this) one can argue there are parts of Northern Ireland which the republican paramilitaries have de-facto control over[14]. Do you really think this should be the bases for listing alongside UN recognised sovereign states? Or, do we simply draw a line under it? --Richardeast (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Take this matter up over at List of sovereign states. This list includes disputed states that are on there. It should certainly not be in line with proper sovereign states with full recognition, but we do need to include them. Kosovo is considered a sovereign state by some nations, there for it belongs on this list. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

BW - you kinda made point was exactly made here. The title of this page is not sovereign states, dependent territories and states with non or limited recognition. The 'Other states' section was included on the other page specifically as the don't fit in the non-sovereign list... I don't know if you want to allow exceptions on this page - but if you do, I'm more than happy for all exceptions to be listed, including states who're in the process of succession --Richardeast (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We include defacto sovereign entities that claim de jure sovereignty. Northern irish paramilitaries dont claim an independent northern ireland, and im not sure how great their defacto control is anyway. Kurdistan is likewise not claiming dejure sovereignty. Republika Sprska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina consider themselves part of bosnia and herzegovina (however unhappily). Totally different situations. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we? I thought we were only going to include sovereign states and dependent territories. So - for instance, were Free Derry to happen tomorrow, you'd be happy for that to be listed on this page? --Richardeast (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We are including just sovereign states and dependent territories. No where does it say only fully recognised sovereign states, disputed sovereign states still can come under such a title. During the debate on the article move, it was clear the disputed states would remain. This is a complete waste of time, especially if you are going to bring up silly examples like Free Derry. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, now theres a POV article. Anyway, taking that assertion on face value, if they asserted independence sure. From what I read they asserted autonomy and a future union with Ireland. Independence does not come into it. This whole discussion seem a bit WP:NOSE Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought using Free Derry would get you two unionists hot under the collar! But, again, it does make my point that de-facto or claimed sovereign is a minefield and, now the community's decided the premise of the article exceptions should be very, very rare... Free Derry was a self declared Free state which until being over run by the British Army had many of the same trappings of statehood which would ensure its listings as per your requirements (its own governing body and even justice and police force). If we're to include de facto states then great - but there's to be no exceptions made... including those which may not fit your politics. --Richardeast (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, when did I become a unionist? As for the minefield, yes it exists. As a list here, we should really follow other articles on wikipedia. Find me the article about a place that says it has declared itself a sovereign state (assuming the article is WP:V of course) and generally I see no problem with its inclusion. So...list other entities you want to add, list away! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear it Chipmunk - you did seem a little too smart to be a unionist! - I'll do some research and come back to you. --Richardeast (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

All non-recognized states should be deleted, no exceptions. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. There is no reason to delete interesting information. There is no harm in keeping them in the list. McLerristarr / Mclay1 13:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I also completely disagree. (By the way NK and Transnistria have recognition - I dont know why they are listed as 'non-recognized'- Check the List of states with limited recognition page.) Outback the koala (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

They are only recognised by partially recognised states, not proper recognised sovereign states, so are really just unrecognised. McLerristarr / Mclay1 01:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't really say that you are being neutral then, since you are taking sides in the dispute. Whether they are sovereign state depends on one's point of view, and wikipedia does not take sides. From the Russian stand-point, for example, Abkhazia is a fully independent state that recognize whomever they like. Why are we trying to ignore this viewpoint? We are trying to build a neutral encyclopedia here after all. Outback the koala (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, they aren't completely unrecognized. Having recognition from states in similar positions is something. I believe the only fully unrecognized country is Somaliland. Micronations not included Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If I declare my house an independent country and so does my neighbour and we recognise each other, does that make our countries partially recognised sovereign states? There are UN members that are technically only partially recognised because some other member of the UN does not recognise their sovereignty. However, 'full' recognition in the sense it is used on these articles only requires recognition from the UN or some other such international organisation, not necessarily all the members. Countries that do not fit into this category, but are reocgnised by a country that does, are partially recognised. A country that is not recognised by a fully recognised country counts as unrecognised. I think that is a fair differentiation. McLerristarr / Mclay1 13:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt your houses would be sovereign states. You'll lack effective control of your territory and your population will be subject to the control of another state (using wikipedia definition here I know). There are a limited number of effective but minimally recognized sovereign states. "Unrecognized" at any rate is misleading. "Recognized by one or more UN member states" and "Unrecognized by any UN member states" seems more accurate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The house thing was just an example, if I owned lots of land, it would perhaps be feasible. Just 'Unrecognised' is easier than 'Unrecognised by any UN member states'. There is already an explanation of the section that says it means unrecognised by the UN. McLerristarr / Mclay1 14:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, in all fairness, you'd probably end up like Hutt River Province, just sitting there for 40 years or so!

I just feel that since we went through all the fuss and bother for such an accurate and specific title that the article should probably reflect that...for consistency's sake. Might be a point to combine the Recognized Sovereign states, partially recognized states, and unrecognized as subheadings under a larger heading, but I suppose that's pedantic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Outback the koala (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The list should be accurate. If that means being pedantic, no matter. Daicaregos (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

De jure - The idea that the UN dictates all international law

My edit here was reverted. In that edit I stated that the UN is a political organization that is not a reliable source. I expand on that by clarifying here that the UN is not a reliable source where there is a dispute or issue it takes a position on, because it is not neutral in that case. Please explain why this was reverted? I would undo with this explanation, but WP:BRD popped into my head, so lets discuss. The UN does not dictate international law. Outback the koala (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The UN does dictate international law. They are the worldwide political organisation and they write international law and decide who is a sovereign state and who is not. The criteria we use on this page is the same criteria used on List of sovereign states. If we don't follow the UN and other international organisations such as the EU and the World Bank, we would have no criteria for inclusion and would have to recognise any country that says it is now independent. McLerristarr / Mclay1 02:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the inclusion criteria is based on the List of sovereign states page, would you object to taking the discussion there and leaving a link behind here so others may follow? Outback the koala (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is going on there. There is currently pages and pages of discussion. Join if you want. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware and involved there, I was hoping to bring this up there as a separate issue. I haven't run into someone in a very long time who believes the UN is neutral, let alone that it 'dictates international law'. I thought it would be a hoot. Outback the koala (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It does dictate international law. It is the international governing body, pretty much all international agreements are created and discussed there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm flabbergasted. Outback the koala (talk)

I see that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I need some offwiki time surely. Outback the koala (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't go, I'll miss you.

"International law is a primary concern of the United Nations." UN website

UN page on international law [15]. Hope that helps Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

UN Security Council resolutions are binding on UN members, as are the founding treaties of the UN. Equally, similar documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Geneva Conventions are binding on signatories. De facto, that makes them part of international law. Given as practically every sovereign state is a member of the UN and a signatory of said treaty, they are binding on practically every sovereign state.

That said, the fact that the legal status of these entities is dispute is the whole point in listing them. If we could definitively say de jure one way or the other, then we wouldn't need to bother including them. Even in cases where states don't have a P5 member on their side (and thus the UNSC may have ruled), there may still be legal dispute between the authorities of the entity concerned (which are not bound by the UN Security Council as they are not in the UN) and the UN or UN member states. Pfainuk talk 06:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Falkland Islands are de jure owned by the UK and Argentina claims they're de jure part of Argentina but nobody listens to them. Just saying "this is now this" or "this is now part of this" doesn't make it so. The point of the de jure part of the table was to show what their status is according the international community. McLerristarr / Mclay1 08:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with having the column. I do see a problem with using the words de jure. Saying that Kosovo is de jure part of Serbia takes the Serbian side of the dispute. It says that Serbia is legally in the right and that Kosovo is legally in the wrong. That is POV.

The most significant difference between these situations and the Falklands, from the perspective of Wikipedia's lists, is precedent. Most of the sources on which we base most of our lists (which are generally lists produced by UN and other international agencies) treat the Falklands separately from Argentina and the United Kingdom but do not treat Abkhazia separately from Georgia. So we include the Falklands in those lists - but in doing this we should always put a footnote or comment in a "notes" column stating that the islands are claimed by Argentina. And we cannot neutrally say that the Falklands are de jure British while Argentina maintains its claim. Pfainuk talk 18:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I now personally claim possession of Austria. Do we have to mention that? It's impossible not to take sides sometimes. If we mentioned every separatist and irredendist movement, the lists would be a bit ridiculous. We already have separate lists for them. By saying that Kosovo is not de jure part of Serbia, that's taking the Kosovan point of view. It's all to complicated. "Imagine no countries..." McLerristarr / Mclay1 01:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. We can't say that Kosovo is de jure part of Serbia and we can't say that Kosovo is not de jure part of Serbia. Both are POV. But we have the choice not to take one side of the other. If, say neither that Kosovo is de jure part of Serbia nor that it is not de jure part of Serbia - if we leave out the words de jure entirely - then we are not saying that either side is in the right, or that either side is in the wrong.

We could instead say, for example, that Kosovo is considered by the UN to be part of Serbia, a statement that does not make a legal judgement either way. Pfainuk talk 05:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the UN is not an organization with its own pull, its policies are driven by its member countries. We could say a majority of countries consider Kosovo to be part of SerbiaChipmunkdavis (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, we've already listed Kosovo as a partially recognised country, so that's already said. Perhaps we should just provide a link to Recognition of Kosovo and do the same for all the others.

That should certainly be linked in the legal status column and the same for other states in that section of the list if they have their own articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:COLOR

The page seems to violate WP:COLOR, which clearly state:

• "Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information."
• "Many readers of Wikipedia may be partially or fully color blind. Ensure that the color combinations used in Wikipedia (infoboxes, navigational boxes, graphs, etc.) have an adequate contrast."

Here, the European Union nations are colored and thats the only way it is shown. Could an Asterisk or a Footnote also be used here to show that? Gman124 ^talk 04:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As there are only two colours, I think that there is probably adequate contrast here. I'm sure that the colours can be changed slightly if need be to increase this, but besides that I think this is fine. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh the first rule they have is that "don't use only colors".

from wp:colors

Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text
unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels. Otherwise,
blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive
that information.

Gman124 ^talk 14:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

added Asterisk next to all EU members. and changed legend too Gman124 ^talk 14:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

An acronym as a short name? I highly doubt it

Just thought I'd point this out. I have no idea what Bosnia calls itself, but a recent edit deleted one of the short names (BiH) with the edit summary "An acronym as a short name? I highly doubt it". In the same column, the United Kingdom's short name is listed as "UK". I don't have a problem with common acronyms in the short name section (although UK isn't a domestic short name, everyone uses it), but does anyone know anything about Bosnian? I think the foreign language parts could do with some attention from experts. McLerristarr / Mclay1 13:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's like you go out of your way to make me feel stupidJoke. Changed it back as I saw it on the Bosnian wikipedia page, though I confess I have no idea what exactly it says there. Is there a policy on which languages to include? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. I try to stay away from foreign languages. The most I do is copying language information from other English Wikipedia pages. The problem with that is that the faulty information could end up being copied all over Wikipedia and no one would notice, especially if the language is Bosnian or some other small language. Unfortunately, I don't have a Bosnian friend so I can't ask him what BiH means. To be safe, I say we just leave it. McLerristarr / Mclay1 14:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

BiH redirects to Bosnia and Herzegovina and BIH is apparently an ISO code so it must be right. Whether or not it's an actual word or just an acronym, I don't know. McLerristarr / Mclay1 14:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose one could ask someone who speaks the language, but no matter. It is definitely the official acronym (appears on European roadsigns etc).

Separate point: If the long name is the same as the short name should it be in both columns? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the ISO, I think, has duplicate short and long names for some but missing long names for others. The problem with the ISO information is that it isn't free so we don't know what they say. The CIA World Factbook, which is free, just leaves out long names if they're the same as the short names. The ISO is a better source but isn't freely available. McLerristarr / Mclay1 14:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I always thought the ISO used some long names as short names (political reasons), thus it leaves out the short names, not the long ones. As the current table is sortable, I think the short/long name should just be duplicated. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

BiH is a common abbreviation for the Bosna i Hercegovina, the official name of that country in Bosnian (meaning Bosnia and Herzegovina). While English speakers often shorten "Bosnia-Herzegovina" to "Bosnia", "Bosnia" actually only refers to about 80% of the country, the rest being Herzegovina. In principle, calling the country "Bosnia" is a bit like calling the UK "Great Britain".

I don't speak the language and have never been to the country, but I believe that BiH is used as an official abbreviation rather than as a name per se. It's closer to "UK" than anything else, but I couldn't account for its use in speech. Pfainuk talk 17:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

ISO 3166 codes (not all are acronyms or even abbreviations) are all on Wikipedia though, both in the project and as apparatus. {{ISO 3166 name|BIH}} for example yields Bosnia and Herzegovina. Rich Farmbrough, 08:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

revision of Euro states/territories list

What about Sovrano Ordine di Malta aka Sovereign Military Order of Malta on Rome's via Condotti, recognised by IT govt..the REAL smallest country? The Caucasus mtns are generally held to be one of the Euro borders...so why the inclusion of anything south of their "summits" e.g.Georgia, Arm, Abkh,Azer...are not these actually part of Asia?...same with either Cypruses...geographically Asia. List should be 48...going by memory...computer novice afraid to switch screens...Ice, Norw, Sv, Fin, UK, Ire, Por, Gib, Sp, And, Fr, Mon, Bel, ND, DE, OS, Liecht, Switz, DK, IT, Vat, SOM(English: SMOM), San Marino, Malta, RU, UKR, Byelarus, Latv, Lith, Eesti, Moldova, (doubtful: has any recognised Transdneister[sp?]), Polska, CZ, Slovakia, Hung, Roumania, Slovenia, Croatia, B-H, Serbiya, Bulg, TU, GR, Maced, Kosovo, Mont, Albania, Lux. It is true Spitsbergen is separated physically from Norway but motherland Norway is closest and no other entity inbetween...colonial Gibraltar a separate "landmass" far from motherland and w/entities inbetween...on this basis one could argue Greece is a two-continent country re: Rhodes & esp. e.g. Kastellorizon, etc....Spain and Port, too, w/their Atlantic Is. often closer to Africa...just where DO oceanographers draw/"carve" up worldwaters & assign trenchslopes/islands/shelves to each continent? Can unity of definition really be "black & white" or are such tied up packages delusional...Robert Ozerov (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You bring up many points, questions and remarks. Could you specify your suggestions a bit and separate different suggestions? This looks a bit to information-dense for a simple person like me to process... L.tak (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That was difficult to read but I think I understand what you are saying. We have had many arguments about this page and the current version reflects a fragile consensus. Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Cyprus, all of which could also be called Asian, are all in the Council of Europe. Svalbard is a special area, which is why it is included under territories; it is something that we cannot all agree on. The "Sovereign Military Order of Malta" is a sovereign entity but it does not have any actual land. This is something that could be up for discussion. McLerristarr / Mclay1 03:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in this, but specific suggestionss would help here. The SMOM has extraterritorial possessions only, such as embassies and consulates, but that is the extent of its controled land. Outback the koala (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Kingdoms and their countries

The interesting arrangement between the Kingdom of Denmark and Denmark, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland, and the relationship between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and The Netherlands, Aruba, Curacao, Sint Maarten, and assorted other Caribbean Islands. I tried to summarize on the note in my last edit. Although the other constituent countries besides Denmark and the Netherlands are technically not in the EU, being overseas countries and territories, Denmark and The Netherlands are listed as EU member states. I believe that they should both be coloured as EU member states, with the clarifying note.

A separate issue that I just saw is the map of Denmark. It currently colors Denmark and the Faroe Islands, and not Greenland. This is inconsistent, although I believe it is because both Denmark and the Faroes are in Europe, while Greenland is NOT. I think that, especially as the Faroes have their own entry, the map of Denmark should color only Denmark, making the Faroes white. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The editings correcting the sovereign state of Kingdom of Denmark have been reverted: apparently, the "situation is complicated". It is not complicated. The Kingdom of Denmark is a sovereign state and a member of the European Union. The constituent country Denmark is not. Denmark should not be shown as a sovereign state or as a member of the European Union. Furthermore, the Faroe Islands, another constituent country of the Kingdom of Denmark, is shown in a separate section. Please explain the NPOV rationale to include the constituent countries of sovereign states on this article. Daicaregos (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I undid this edit, [16], where Denmark was changed to Kingdom of Denmark, and removed from the list of countries of the EU. I'll change it to your "Kingdom of Denmark" in the EU then, in line with your Kingdom of the Netherlands change. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I understood Denmark to be a member of the EU, and that the Kingdom of Denmark is not. However, as I'm wrong, so I apologise. That being the case, as one of its constituent countries (and apparently, therefore, part of the EU), the Faroe Islands are represented by the Kingdom of Denmark and should not be included separately on this article. If you think that constituent countries should be included, the article's name should be changed to reflect its content. Daicaregos (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The Faroe islands is technically not part of the EU, being an OMR/OCT of the EU. I argue that its status is close to that of a dependent territory (this highlighted due to its lack of EU membership, see Faroe Islands and the European Union), and therefore they should be included. I don't particularly care one way or the other if it is referred to as a constituent country. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I was misled by the Kingdom of Denmark article, which says in the intro: "Of the three, only Denmark is a member of the European Union.". Which just goes to show that you can't rely on the Wikipedia for information. Arguing a country's status is fine, though it needs to be verified by reliable sources. Denmark considers the Faroe Islands to be “part of the Kingdom of Denmark”, the CIA don't consider the Faroe Islands to be dependent, but “Part of the Kingdom of Denmark”. The BBC call them “an autonomous region of Denmark.” I have found no reliable sources defining the Faroe Islands as a “Dependent Territory”. If there are any, please provide them. Daicaregos (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:PROVEIT (which includes: "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy.", "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed ..." and "as the Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has put it: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo-information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong." It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons" (Jimmy Wales Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information, WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006, accessed June 11, 2006).</ref>"") Unless a reliable source can be provided defining the Faroe Islands as a "Dependent Territory" it should be removed. Daicaregos (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this keeps mainly coming up as we have no definition for dependent territory, which is backed by any reliable source. So nothing of this list will pass PROVEIT at present and the Faroe Islands are no exception. The hidden criteria which hang around for dependent territory (must not have full power of foreign affairs, some independence from the mainland, etc.) make that some things are included and some are not (see discussion on Svalbard; different setting, but same problem).
The name change to and dependent territories from and territories was made to get a consistent list with clear criteria. In the absence of clear criteria, we might need to rethink the name and use or this will be coming up again and again without reaching consensus...L.tak (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If they can't be verified, they should be removed and the article renamed. Daicaregos (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source defining the Faroe Islands as a "Dependent Territory" was requested. The template has now been removed and a note added with a link to the CIA factbook. The CIA factbook says: “part of the Kingdom of Denmark: a self-governing overseas administrative division of Denmark since 1948” The citation does not define the Faroe Islands as a Dependent Territory. I have reverted. Please do not remove the template without providing a reliable source defining the Faroe Islands as a "Dependent Territory". Unless a reliable source can be provided defining the Faroe Islands as a "Dependent Territory" the entry for the Faroe Islands should be removed. Daicaregos (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree the souce doesn't say this and is not that useful here. However, I would guess that none of these islands has a reliable source that they are dependent territories, so there is no reason to treat the Faroe Islands differently with a "". The Faroe Islands are not part of the metropolitan area, they are not indendent, so just like all the others they are a "dependent territory" to the best of a definition I can think of (and... for which there is no source at all on wikipedia). What would be your proposal for a name change of the dependent territory category? Or should we define in a note what we include? Or should they go altogether? I think those are the questions we should answer; and not battle every time at a different "....thing-unit-territory-land-island ....." L.tak (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That source is a list of territories with "Dependency Status". It is perfectly fine as a source. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Armenia

How is Armenia in Europe and Asia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.124.123 (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right in poiting out the inconsistency.

In reality, and in printed sources outside of Wikipedia, Armenia is an entirely Asian country. The capital and all the territory is in Asia, and no part of Armenia is within Europe.

Unfortunately, on the issue of Europe's borders, the English Wikipedia has been more or less taken over by a group of pov-pushers that wish to make a number of Asian-Caucasian border countries to been seen as part of "Europe". That is why we have the ridiculous inconsistency of certain states being included in both Asia and Europe.

Removing Armenia from the list (other countries with capitals in Asia should also be removed, but lets settle for this right now). Koyos (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be against a swift change like that, there are valid arguments to have Armenia listed in Europe. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid there simply aren't. I already went through this issue on another language edition of Wikipedia (Swedish). I checked a large number of authoritative, printed sources (major international Atlases and textbooks on geography). The sources all agree: Armenia is not a part of Europe (geographical sources say the same about Turkey, Kazakhstan, Azerbadjian and Georgia, but lets deal with the most ridiculous case of misinformation first). Koyos (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Chip. Outback the koala (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not about "agreeing" or not. According to WP:REF, the encyclopedia is supposed to reflect sources, not the personal opinions of individual editors. In this case, according to (for example) this university-level textbook in regional geography;

de Blij et al (2002): Geography: Realms, Regions and Concepts

According to this source, the state of Armenia is a part of Asia and not a part of Europe. This page should reflect that. Koyos (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That fact is that this has long been disputed by editors all over the project. The border definitions of the continents is constantly disputed, while many more argue that Armenia is "culturally" or "politically" European(pointing to the fact its a member of the CoE) and hundreds of sources being thrown about. Swedish Wikipedia has there own thing going on, and thats cool. Besides, this is not the page to discuss this, there are simply too few of us here. Maybe RFC on a template or talk at Borders of the continents? If you go there, please leave us a link so we may follow you over there. :) Outback the koala (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I know, I have observed this debate for years, myself. But I certainly have not seen all these sources that you speak about. What people do throw about are various links to websites. But the relevant source here is published literature in regional geography. Like the textbook I cite above. Membership in this or that organization does not place a country in a certain continent. Cultural attachment is also useless, if that definition is used Canada, Australia and the US etc should be included in Europe.

The only consistent principle of allocating countries to continents is to go by the location of the capital. If a capital is located within the geographical boundaries of continent x, the country is included in continent x. Koyos (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The "geographical boundaries" of Europe aren't even properly agreed on! I mean, geographically, it's not even a continent. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The BBC places it in Europe, if the opinion needs to be sourced. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The Greek islands of the eastern Aegean

Should not the article refer to the islands of the Dodecanese and the other Greek islands in the eastern Aegean Sea as being geographically in Western Asia, but considered socio-politically part of Europe? Davshul (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If it can be sourced, yes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Sociopolitically part of Europe", or do you mean Christian? All I can say is this is tragicomic, I thought Wikipedia is secular but apparently it's invaded by fanatics! Some people will never learn what is NPOV because of their brain-washing education system in their countries. Cyprus is also European right? Well not geographically, I mean "tragicomically" European! --Bergamut (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Those places are sociopolitically European because they're right next to Europe, many people of European origin live there and the countries have a heavy European cultural influence. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

They are islands, so they are not on any continent anyway, and this subject is not worth discussing too long. Besides, the limits between Europe and Asia in these parts (i.e. Bosphorus and Dardanelles) are only a convention, albeit an old one, inside a single landmass. I guess you could call these islands "adjacent to the landmass Eurasia" if you want to describe them geographically. Cyprus is not geographically adjacent to Europe at all, nor is Iceland. Place Clichy (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Arguing that smaller pieces of land -- that are islands -- are NOT also parts of continents is quite specious! A big part of the justification involves examining the continental shelves. Is it too much to expect people to recognize some cacts about the science of geology?

For example, there are nil questions about these islands being part of Europe:

Great Britain, Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, the Danish island on which Copenhagen stands, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, the Baleric Islands, Crete, and the various offshore islands of Russia in the Arctic Ocean; of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, and Scotland that lie in the Atlantic Ocean; and of Spain, France, Italy, Albania, and the former Yugoslavia that lie in the Mediterranean Sea. Those all lie in continential shelves of their nearby countries.

Likewise, the Faroe Islands lie on the continental shelf west of Denmark and north of Great Britain, so they are clearly part of Europe and hence part of Eurasia.

On the other hand, Cyprus is clearly on top of the continental shelf of the main body of Turkey, Asia Minor, so Cyprus is part of Asia, and NOT part of Europe or Africa.

Likewise, the Canary Islands, part of Spain, clearly lie on the continental shelf of Africa, so they are part of that continent.

To me, the situation of the Madeira Islands, which belong to Portugal is less clear. You need to get someone to examine maps, charts, and models of the Earth to determine if they are part of Europe.

There are several other major islands that do not lie on any continental shelf, but rather they lie along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, where Europe and North America are separating from each other, slowly but surely, and igniting a lot of volcanoes, Hence, they are not part or any continent:

Iceland, the Azores, Jan Mayen, and Bear Island (Norway)

By way of contrast, Greenland is connected via a continental shelf to Baffin Island, and Baffin Island is connected via a continental shelf (under the Hudson Strait) with the mainland of Canada. Hence, Greenland is part of North America. Likewise for Cuba and the rest of the Greater Antilles, and all of the islands of Canada that lie in the Arctic Ocean -- including Victoria Island (Canada). Likewise, Japan, Sakhalin Island, and Formosa are part of Asia, and during the Ice Ages, they were connected by dry land. How did the ancient and medieval Japanese get horses? Horses had lived there naturally for thousands of years, since they came there without the aid of people -- during previous Ice Ages. Likewise for monkeys on Japan.

98.81.9.116 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The Isle of Sark

This article, thus far, makes no mention of the Isle of Sark, and actually, there are more other Channel Islands besides Guernsey and Jersey.

If you are going to mention two of them, you need to mention all of them. 98.81.9.116 (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sark is part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey. Guernsey and Jersey are the only islands that need to be included. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Verifications

I've used the CIA to back up most information. However, it does not cover the minority languages of Spain and the United Kingdom, and does not note the latin name for Switzerland. These may need sourcing if it's vital to source foreign names, or they could be removed.

I removed both Britain and BiH as they were not on the factbook. Britain is becoming uncommon anyway, but I'll see if I can find an official government position on it if that's necessary.

San Marino is simply noted as the Republic of San Marino on the CIA page, and on their official page. I've left as as Most Serene Republic of San Marino but I'm for removing that per the sources. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Maps

I recently added standard maps for dependencies, and was reverted for the perfectly legitimate reason that you couldn't actually see them at an 150px scale. However, this raises the question of what to do for those already in use. The microstates are barely visible (Andorra has an ugly red ring), Cyprus is all but non-existant, even Luxembourg and Montenegro are pushing it. Unfortunately, the maps currently used are png's, so I can't just duplicate scale up and box the smaller states. Maps of the format of Gibraltar would be good, but once again that's a png. Should an entirely new set of maps be created, just by taking an svg world map and boxing appropriately? I wouldn't know how to make the colour distinction in Russia etc. Would it be fine to just replace the maps of the smaller countries? I'd prefer a standard. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think replacing them with the current EU ones would be good. File:EU-Germany.svg etc. Maps exist for at least all the EU countries, and I believe most other European countries as well (the other's do not of course show the UNEU). Should be easy enough to make dependent territory ones, ala current Gibraltar. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Small countries like Liechtenstein use large maps on their articles, which are not particularly good. Liechtenstein's infobox also includes a zoomed in picture of it, which, in my opinion, is zoomed in too far. Since Liechtenstein is not in the EU, it has no EU map. "(the other's do not of course show the UN)" I assume was meant to say "do not of course show the EU". Finding or creating a European a map and zooming in on small countries seems like the best idea. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I can easily manipulate the colours in those maps to wipeout the EU for the correct countries, and upload. What I don't know how to do is to create a nice detailed zoom like in the current Gibraltar. That may not be necessary for larger countries, Norway has a Europe map already for example. Perhaps someone at the graphics lab can make the zooms. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

All EU countries have them of course, as do File:Europe-Iceland.svg, File:Europe-Norway.svg, File:Europe-Belarus.svg, File:Europe-Ukraine.svg, File:Europe-Serbia.svg, File:Europe-Macedonia.svg, File:Europe-Croatia.svg, File:Europe-Bosnia and Herzegovina.svg.

Montenegro does not, but I'll make one. Shouldn't need a zoom.

The microstates all have them, but in png's without any zoom. As you noted, Liechtenstein has a zoom that may be too small, but that can be helped. Microsoft paint could probably just take that and place it over the location in Europe map in some sort of box, somewhat like File:EU-Luxembourg.svg. Of course, an svg would be nice.

As for the other microstates, zooms could be created from the following. File:Location Monaco Europe.png could use an adjusted File:Monaco-wards.svg. File:Location San Marino Europe.png could use an adjusted File:San Marino.png. File:Location Vatican City Europe.png could use a heavily adjusted File:VaticanCity Annex.jpg. File:Location Andorra Europe.png could use an adjusted File:Andorramap.png.

Moldova, strangely enough, only has a png, File:Location Moldova Europe.png. I assume this was to show Transnistria.

The territories I haven't looked at yet can easily be made in a fashion similar to the microstates, if they do not already have a map. The question is whether png's are okay or whether svg's would be preferred. If svg's are needed, perhaps a list should be compiled (such as with the microstates above) and sent to the graphics workshop? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I lied, Montenegro did exist. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Europe-Georgia.svg, File:Europe-Azerbaijan.svg, File:Europe-Armenia.svg. I'll create a Russian one, now represented by this redlink, but that will change. File:Europe-Russia.svg. File:Europe-Kazakhstan.svg

File:Europe-Kosovo.svg exists too. Current redlinks: File:Europe-Abkhazia.svg, File:Europe-South Ossetia.svg, File:Europe-Northern Cyprus.svg,

File:Europe-Nagorno-Karabakh.svg, File:Europe-Transnistria.svg

I'm convinced and will make the switch once I upload the maps I can. The ability to see the microstates won't be worse, and now it has the possibility of improving. Later this can be extended towards the dependencies, which currently don't use the base map anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done with sovereign states. Will continue with rest of article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Notes

The notes here do not add to the article, and just clutter it up with random Trivia. The only ones I think are relevant to the article are those discussing positions of countries in and out of Europe. The rest are completely unrelated to the article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The note about the city-states is unimportant but the others do help explain things, which are supposed to stop editors contantly removing countries like Turkey from the list, but they never bother reading the notes. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I see the relevance of the Turkey note. I don't see the relevance of these in relation to position in Europe:

• Czechia is the unofficial short name of the Czech Republic, but is not used very often.
• Denmark and the Netherlands are constituent countries of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of the Netherlands respectively. Both are members of the European Union, however the other constituent countries of their kingdoms are not. In international organisations, the terms Denmark and Netherlands are often used as short forms of their respective kingdoms as a whole.
• The terms Republic of Ireland and Poblacht na hÉireann are not official long names and are used only as a legal description meant to differentiate the state from the island.
• These countries are city-states.
• The Netherlands is also known as Holland, but this is the improper name of the whole country as it refers only to a small region inside the country. See Netherlands (terminology).
• The United Kingdom (UK) consists of the countries of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The UK is responsible for the foreign relations and ultimate good governance of the Crown Dependencies of Guernsey, the Isle of Man and Jersey, which are otherwise separate. The mainlands of England, Scotland and Wales make up the island of Great Britain (or simply Britain), which is sometimes used synonymously with the United Kingdom.

Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The notes about Czechia, the Republic of Ireland and Holland explain why these names are or aren't used in the table. The notes about the constituent countries explain why they aren't included in the table (for the case of the UK) and what the official long names actually mean (for the Netherlands and Denmark). However, as I said before, I agree with you on the note about the city-states. Let's remove that now. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand the reasons behind listing all three names, but I still feel they are unnecessary, the Republic of Ireland one especially. We use the netherlands because that's what the country is called. We used Ireland because that is what it is called. The Czechia one is slightly more complicated, but that is because in English the country is often described with its long name. In sum, I don't see how this article needs to concern itself with naming issues. Otherwise it'd have to go the whole way, notes for "Britain", "Beylorussia", and probably others.

The Netherlands and Denmark note is also fairly unnecessary. Even going by the weird constitutional argument that the areas on continental europe don't represent the sovereign state, there is no indication that what is noted on this table is not the sovereign state, especially since the name change. In response to the Faroe islands not being there if the sovereign state was the Kingdom of Denmark, that's ignoring the sources. Actually, if a note is required, it should be on Faroe islands, not Denmark.

As for the UK one, there is no reason for those to be in the table at all, not since the name change. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking of listing it for a Peer Review, maybe that may provide opinions on the notes from editors who haven't dealt with the article and can judge how helpful those notes are. Good idea? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sealand

Shouldn't the Principality of Sealand be listed here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikhail Dvorkin (talk • contribs) 23:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Micronations are not listed on lists of countries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mainland solely in Europe

Princeton University dictionary defines mainland as "the main land mass of a country or continent; as distinguished from an island or peninsula". While I understand that by this term "mainland" the editor meant that "most of the country's territory is in Europe", given the ambiguous nature of borders I am confused as to how someone determined which countries have most of their land in Europe. For example, according to one definition by Herodotus, the continental border goes on the Rioni River which puts 2/3 of Georgia's territory in Europe, while placing Abkhazia and South Ossetia entirely in Europe. To me it sounds that either the category needs to be renamed, or these entities need to be added in their respective places.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 04:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"Contiguousness"

I find it puzzling that the concept of "contiguousness" is being used to exempt countries like France from being moved to transcontinental country sections. Should not we at least create a separate table for non-contiguous transcontinental states? After all, what does contiguousness change? the state still extends outside of Europe, contiguous or not.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 04:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Article scope

If this article has to have any justification as a standalone list alongside articles such as Member state of the European Union, its scope is obviously geographical. I realize Cyprus is in the EU, but it is not in Europe. Just like Switzerland is in Europe but not in the EU. We have two articles, one at Member state of the European Union and one at List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe precisely because they document two non-identical sets. There is a considerable overlap between the sets, but they are strictly orthogonal criteria. Cyprus figures in one of these lists but not in the other.

If this article is to list any country that is somehow "associated with" Europe, the title would need to change to "list of states and territories somehow associated with Europe in political or cultural terms". Obviously such a list would be pure WP:SYNTH and would rightly be deleted, or merged into the generic western world article. --dab (𒁳) 10:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

While I fully agree in principle, the borders of Europe are not exactly defined to any precise scientific degree. I think that as long as other sources such as the BBC decide to place Cyprus and similar countries in Europe, this list has to acknowledge that somehow. One of the reviewers for the Peer Review suggested a similar split of transcontinental and others, so I think that's good. I've done a full revert, but if you could just list the changes you made so I and others can discuss, appreciated. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

so? The borders of Europe are defined with sufficient accuracy to put it beyond dispute that Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and possibly Georgia are transcontinental. A list pretending to list "states and territories in Europe" cannot just list Russia or Turkey, because these states are not "in Europe", they have a part of their territory in Europe. I did not object to still list them in a separate section dedicated to this case, but simply listing them as "in Europe" clearly departs from the stated scope of this article. Not to mention going on about entities that are not in Europe at all but somehow "associated with Europe".

Clearly, I have no problem with listing countries placed in Europe by some quotable sources but not by others. These can appear in a separate section, discussing each case for what it is worth. I have made a suggestion on how this can be implemented. Simply reverting this certainly isn't a step forward. But if you insist on reverting, I will just tag the article for bias, synthesis and cleanup and leave it to you to sort it out as you think best. --dab (𒁳) 13:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The BBC sections may be interesting, but I do not think they can be read as positive statements without violating WP:SYNTH. After all, the BBC does not group countries by continent. Its sections are rather: UK, Africa, Asia-Pac, Europe, Latin America, Mid-East, South Asia, US & Canada. Thus placing UK outside of Europe, and Libya and Egypt outside of Africa. Yes we can still discuss "Europe" as used as a geographical sphere for news agencies, but clearly this will have to be under a separate heading. --dab (𒁳) 13:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking to take steps forward, I made one revert. I'll work on it and contact you later. Just to clarify, you propose removing Cyprus and Armenia from the list right, leaving an explanation in a separate section? I agree with that argument about the BBC, just throwing arguments that have been tossed at me out there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

For a country to be admitted into the EU, it must be in Europe. Therefore, Cyprus is in Europe per the definition of the EU. To not include it would be POV – being inclusive is not POV. The article specifically states that the definition of Europe is not exact. The countries on this list are those that are sometimes (or always) classified as in Europe; we're not saying they are because we aren't allowed to have an opinion in an article. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Mclay1, your first sentence above is incorrect. Europe is a continent. States do not "jump" from one continent to another based on political dialogue last year, this year, next year. Geographers define continents, not politicians of the day....see Boundaries between continents. dab is correct above.....we have a separate WP list of EU members....this is a list of states on the continent (@ ChipmunkDavis, the Europe-Asia divide is in fact is well-defined, consistently so, over the past century by the relevant authority (geographers)) from the geographers with the CIA FactBook to Websters Geographical Dictionary to dozens of atlases inlcuding National Geographic to the Royal Geographic (UK).)

The current practice here of listing mostly-Asian nations in this list so that visually they appear co-equal to the others is misleading to readers. I agree with the suggestion above of a couple editors: Armenia and Cyprus for sure, with only political dialogue and politics linking them to Europe (no European land at all), and IMO Kazakstan, Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia should be in a different section, immediately below the main section. Abhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and S. Ossetia, have 100% of their territory south of the main Caucasus range and, with N. Cyprus, have no European territory at all and have no memberships in European organizations, and thus by definition (the lead of the article) do not belong on this page at all (I added a "see Asia" for them.)

@Mclay1, WP articles do not include all minority views or any country that is "sometimes" classified in Europe. The US was a long-time member of ASEAN (SE Asia.) DLinth (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

My statement was not incorrect. By EU law, for a country to be accepted into the EU it must be one of the countries they have classified as in Europe. Why is the EU's definition of Europe less important than the CIA's or anyone else's? It's all opinion anyway. The divide between Europe and Asia is not clear cut. All the countries on this page are at least partially geographically or politically classified as in Europe by many reliable sources. Not all but many. That's all that matters. What another Wikipedia article says makes no difference to this one – everyone knows Wikipedia is an unreliable source! The information in this article must be judged by reader before being accepted as truth. The article clearly states the divide between Europe and Asia is contentious; nowhere does it say that all the countries are definitely in Europe. As for the non-UN countries, they are part of sovereign states in Europe so will remain on this list as long as their current state does. If their independence is ever accepted, then it will be up to other sources to determine whether they are European or Asian. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"By EU law"....by saying that you invalidated your argument right at the start. Europe is a continent, thus this should be a list of states in Europe. There's another WP list of EU members. Continents are not defined by political groups whose memberships can change month to month. Let's see...your view is that the political whims of the EU in 2011 override a century or so of scholarly WP:RS publications, atlases, etc. defining continents (which have long settled on the Aegean to Black Seas to Caucasus to Urals defintion of the Europe-Asia divide.)

And what numerous other WP articles "say" has no bearing. So you believe your personal opinion overides not just scholarly geographers but WP:Consensus. Interesting.

The article lead says states in Europe or members of European organizations. I don't believe the second part belongs in this article, but will defer to consensus on that. However, Abhazia, Nagorno-K, N. Cyprus, S. Ossetia fit neither definition of this own article's lead....It's "already decided" and has been for a century (see Boundaries between continents including by the UN (UN categorisations/map.)....they have no territory in Europe. And they have no membership in European organizations......So they don't belong. If consensus can be reached to change the definition in the lead, then and only then would they belong.DLinth (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Mclay1 on this one. Because the states of Abhazia, Nagorno-K, N. Cyprus and S. Ossetia are all located within nations that are considered as European, whether for geographical or cultural reasons, they would be eligible for Council of Europe membership if their independence was recognized and so they therefore belong on this page. Sapient Homo (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see that, though I disagree....Because they "could someday become a member of some political organization" hardly qualifies as a rationale to move them to a new continent....i.e., By 2025, a newly independent Greenland, Israel, Armenia, etc. will all "move" to a new continent if they join the EU?....overriding the UN, World Factbook, Websters Geographical, National Geographic, and other WP:RS sources that all clearly put all four in W. Asia. Really? Can't agree. But, as a compromise:

If "possible political affiliation" is the list criteria, then as a compromise here, the list lead must absolutely state that crieteria so as to not mislead WP readers, just like the leads of the other two WP pages with this same list already say....I will leave the list untouched, but copy from those other articles that one sentence into the lead: "The list below is includes all entities falling even partially under any of the various common definitions of Europe, geographic or political."DLinth (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent compromise and I believe it should make all sides happy. While Armenia already deserves its place in the list by virtue of its cultural reasons Council of Europe membership, what to do about ifs and maybes like Israel and an independent Greenland, should they become part of the EU, can be safely left for some future discussion. Sapient Homo (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that because it's called the "European Union" that all the member states must be European, I'm saying that the EU has a geographical definition of Europe, one which is shared by many other reliable sources. And, no, the consensus of other Wikipedia articles is irrelevant here; every article stands on its own. The definition of Europe in this article is a very common one. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Maps"

One thing this page still requires is some standardized maps.

The following need the standard Europe map showing the location and due to their size should have a zoom in picture like some other small states/entities have : Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Gibraltar and Guernsey.

Also I would suggest that the following small states/entities also need a zoom in picture: Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City, Kosovo and Faroe Islands. The Åland Islands also need a zoom in but to keep consistent because it is EU territory the EU should be coloured in green (also needs the water made white not transparent).

I tried but can't do it myself as I have discovered I do not have a program for creating svg files. Sapient Homo (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to do some of this myself, but in many cases a zoom can't be created from current svg's as the detail isn't good enough. It'd be nice if something similar to the current cyprus map is done with the smaller countries, with a whole Europe map for location in Europe + inset. Try Inkscape for a simple svg program. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge or not?

There is a merge tag on the top of this list. I've brought this up here for discussion. Outcome will be merge or tag removed (hopefully). Rennell435 (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Table sort by area broken?

When I sort the table by area in ascending order (smallest to largest), it lists the states in this order: Vatican City, Iceland, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Greece, Lichtenstein, Russia, Luxembourg... Um, no? It looks like the convert function actually makes the table sort as if the entries were alphabetic (i.e. convert0.44, convert103000, convert110879, convert13812, etc.). The equivalent page for Africa puts the units (km2) in the header and doesn't convert, and it sorts just fine.

I would Be Bold, but I'm not familiar enough with WP's table coding. 174.52.221.60 (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

EUROASIA

EuroAsia is considered to be placed towards and around the Caspian sea, including EU candidate country Turkey. European territories normally count for Gibraltar cross The Mediterranean and Bosporen, then the Black sea towards river Volga and the Ural mountains, and thus in the north closing with Svalbard. Great Britain can be divided into Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland seperately to be counted for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.129.37.31 (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What's your point? Is there something in the article that you would like changed? Also, do you mean "Eurasia"? McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Serbia/Kosovo

No, I'm not here to debate that thorny issue per se.

However, I wondered if the entry for Serbia would benefit from a note to clarify whether the population and land area figures include or exclude Kosovo. I assume from the map that Kosovo is included in the figures for Serbia (but assume is all I can do!). A footnote to confirm either "Including Kosovo (see partially recognised states below)" or "Excluding Kosovo (see partially recognised states below)" would have been very helpful.

I think the same point would also apply to Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Moldova for similar reasons. 86.184.185.220 (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Constituent countries

Currently the setup of Denmark and the Netherlands links both Denmark/Netherlands and Kingdom of Denmark/Kingdom of the Netherlands. This linking to the Denmark and Netherlands articles, in my opinion, is confusing. For whatever reason, both of those links are not to sovereign states, but rather to subdivisions of those states. This is in opposition to all the other states listed here, which link the shortform name to the state, and leave the long name unlinked. Due to this, I think that whoever changed Denmark to "[[Kingdom of Denmark|Denmark]]<br><br>Kingdom of Denmark" made a smart choice. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"Denmark" and "Netherlands" seem like better articles to link to. If we change to sovereign states list to only like to the kingdom articles, I think we should add a constituent country list, for Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK, or add the constituent countries to one of the other lists. I know we've tried that before but I really can't see what the problem is. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't add them because there is really no reason to. We don't want to list the subdivisions of every place we have on this list, it would be far too long and unwieldily. I personally disagree with the current setup of both the Kingdom articles, I think Denmark and Netherlands should simply link to the state, especially in the case of Denmark (where the different parts are not equal at all), but as it stands it is inconsistent to have these two states set up differently from all the others. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It must be consistent. There is no justification to note some constituent countries and not others. Either list them all, or none.
Also, Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of the Netherlands are member states of the EU (see Treaty of Lisbon, Article 49 C) - Denmark and Netherlands are not. Daicaregos (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hold on. You suggesting that the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Denmark are sovereign states and that the Netherlands and Denmark are constituent countries, am I correct? I was always under the assumption that the "Kingdom" in these cases meant the monarchy (and as we know a monarchy does not have to be a sovereign state), and that the Netherlands and Denmark, whilst also being constituent countries within the monarchy, were also sovereign states, whilst Aruba and Greenland etc were not... Does anyone have any links to legislation on this? Rennell435 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it, that is how the current wikipedia articles are set up. The Kingdom of the Netherlands article explicitly states that it is a sovereign state made up of four constituent countries. Denmark is less clear, (and the Kingdom of Denmark has a dearth of sources,) but Greenland and the Faroes are often called countries. I don't have links to the legislation (although the external links of the Netherlands pages have some good ones), but as I understand it theoretically both are unitary states, with the state including all of the 'countries' (or whatever you want to call them). However, the other areas besides European Denmark and the Netherlands listed as dependencies in plenty of sources (and European Netherlands now includes some Caribbean islands, making that designation not technically correct either). It's not as if the Kingdom covers multiple sovereign states, like the commonwealth realms, because as you said each individual part is not a sovereign state. As Daicaregos noted above, the membership of the EU is taken by the Kingdoms, although I suppose this is further complicated by the fact that the shortform names of the Kingdoms is the same as one of its parts.

There are sources for the netherlands, such as this source(slightly outdated, as it still covers the Netherlands Antilles, but anyway), which can be used. This one notes the queen as a head of state of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and calls the individual areas countries. I suppose the fact that Kingdom of Denmark is so badly sourced means it may be better for the reader if Denmark is linked though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to respond. I'm not sure whether the current setup is the right way or whether it just happened out of analogy with the UK. Whichever it is, this probably isn't the best place to have the discussion. I agree with you on the Kingdom of Denmark page, Denmark is a better article to link to. No comment on the Netherlands pages. Rennell435 (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Dependent territories

Not sure if the Italian enclave of Campione d'Italia (located in Switzerland) should be included between the Dependent territories paragraph. Opinions? Thanks.--Sal73x (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting place, but it is a full part of Italy. This isn't the place to list exclaves. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but the expression it is a full part of Italy is not really truthful (to not say wrong) because as wiki sais ...Campione has a considerable amount of economic and administrative integration with Switzerland..., is under Swiss law, has Swiss currency, Swiss car plates, Swiss phone operators and is exempt from EU VAT. This are some considerable difference with the other usual Italian comune. It is part of Italy but a is a territory under spacial conditions.--Sal73x (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, how foolish of me to make an absolute statement about anything political or legal! Still, I've never seen enclaves on a list of dependencies before, and without a source it shouldn't be added. Is the name of the area Campione d'Italia or just Campione, because on the list of enclaves and exclaves it's just called Campione. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hehe there are no fools here. I appreciate your point but on wikipedia can be found: a Dependent territory ...is a territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a State, and remains politically outside of the controlling state's integral area.... Out of the 3 points mentioned Campione d'Italia fits to all 3. I understand that so far no enclaves/exclaves have been listed but what is the difference between an Enclave and exclave and a Dependent territory? and, more important, what criteria is there to not allow to an enclave to be also a Dependat territory at the same time? Being surronded by land instead of sea?--Sal73x (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Campione d'Italia is the full and official name of the exclave, often shorten to Campione by the Italians.--Sal73x (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As for sources, the UK HM Revenue & Customs lists Campione d'Italia between territories here.--Sal73x (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That definition of dependent territory has been very hard to source, and the current source used doesn't back it up that well at all. The definition of "Integral Area" is the complicated issue here, and as with dependent territory i doubt there is a hard and fast definition. I don't think there is a relationship between whether something is an enclave and whether it is a dependent territory, although one would expect areas separated from the main body of a country to be more likely to be dependent territories I suppose. The source you give is interesting, but I don't think it fully backs up the point as it specifically excludes Campione by its name, yet excludes what it calls dependent territories under the Netherlands. Perhaps we can add a note to Italy (and I suppose other countries with enclaves) noting these special areas? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracies on the article

In the chapter "Definition of Europe" of Article in the second paragraph stated erroneously that: "The island of Cyprus in Southwest Asia is approximate to Anatolia (or Asia Minor) and is on the Anatolian Plate but is often considered part of Europe as a current member of the European Union (EU). Armenia is entirely in Southwest Asia but is a member of certain European organisations" Cyprus is located in southeastern Europe and not in southwestern Asia as erroneously mentioned in Article. Cyprus has always belonged to the European continent since the inception of the science of geography. The island is a fundamental part of the continent of Europe both geographically and culturally. The culture and European values are not adopted by the inhabitants of the island in recent years that one can write "often considered part of Europe" but rather invented by them and spread to the rest of Europe many centuries ago. The social, economic, and political system in the island, religion and all other aspect of life is inseparable from what is known as European culture. The society and human relationships are similar to other southern European countries such as Greece, Italy and Spain. As regards the geographical position of Armenia "Armenia is entirely in Southwest Asia" is completely incorrect. In fact Armenia lies in Europe continent exactly in the same geographical region of the Caucasus with Georgia and Azerbaijan. Caucasus is the natural boundary between Europe and Asia but throughout this vast mountain range lies almost entirely within the European continent. Article paradoxically singles in Armenia from Georgia and Azerbaijan, although the three countries belonging to the group of the Caucasus countries, all their land situated in the wide territory of mountains and their fortunes are inextricably tied in all respects, both historically and geographically. Incidentally in another point of the article relative to the previous stated erroneously that "Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey have territory both in Europe and Asia" which is true only for the last three. 93.109.77.112 (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It is true that Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan are all in the Caucasus mountain region. But the article here on Europe says:

Europe is generally 'divided' from Asia to its east by the watershed divides of the Ural and Caucasus Mountains, ...

(emphasis added by me)

The watershed divide would be a fairly definite line through the length of the Caucusus mountains, and probably wouldn't be at the edge. By that definition of Europe versus Asia, anything north of that divide is Europe and anything south of it is Asia. The same article has a map showing that boundary, and you'll notice that both Georgia and Azerbaijan have only small areas to the north side of the border, and Armenia is completely south.

As for Cyprus, you'll note it's tucked into a little corner in the eastern part of the Mediterranean; its closest neighbors are ASIAN Turkey, Syria, and Israel. The origins of its culture were probably intimately tied up with the Middle East. I don't think that saying so in any way minimizes Cyprus's role in civilizing Europe. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Ordering by area doesn't work

In the table, ordering the countries alphabetically or by population seems to work. But ordering by area doesn't. (And I came here to see them arranged by area.) Anybody know how to fix that? 140.147.236.195 (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

I figured it out, and I fixed it. It works now. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Coding problems

I can't see Latvia or Liechtenstein, but can't find out why. Any ideas? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I fixed Liechtenstein. When I was going through yesterday editing the coding so that sorting by population would work right (see discussion topic just before this one), I omitted one brace there. I've put it in, and it works. And it seems that Latvia has magically reappeared. That I can't explain. 173.79.191.234 (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

I meant by area, not population. 173.79.191.234 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Thanks! Much appreciated. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ok im not good at this wiki thing so i'm just typing soz if it makes it look bad, anyway why isn't Kosovo on there as it is recognised by most european states ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.210.78 (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo is in the second section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Turkey in Europe?

Hello,

I got a question, is Turkey in Europe (not the EU but the continent Europe).

Because I guess and learned on school (nearly 10 years ago), Turkey was in Asia....

Greetings, SnSKiller (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of Turkey, including the capital, is in Asia, however a small part of it, East Thrace, is in Europe. This includes half of the city of Istanbul. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

But is it right to set Turkey in this page b/c it is only a small part from Turkey in Europe?

SnSKiller (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That's debatable. A similar situation exists with Georgia and Azerbaijan, while Armenia and Cyprus aren't even in Europe. However, some have argued for their inclusion and there have been a couple of minor edit wars. Russia is mostly in Asia geographically, but is politically and demographically centred in Europe. The page doesn't have any standards for inclusion right now, but feel free to propose some. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it is good for me, but I asked b/c on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_low-cost_airlines we have a set of Asia countries and European countries, I like to know where to place Turkey, I placed it in Asia now. Btw thank you for your fast respond Chipmunkdavis ;-) SnSKiller (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has recently gone through and done a lot of intricate editing on both this page and the comparable one for Asia (the sorting feature now works for Area--you're welcome!), take it from me. The countries in question--and Kazakhstan, too--all appear on both pages. That sounds to me like the best solution. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Oh yeah! Russia, too. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

My school geography teacher knew geography worser than i do today, and she haven't even heard about dependent territories! The article is arranged this way just for easiness, as 50% of population of Greenland/Russia/Kazakhstan/Armenia/Azerbaijan/Georgia/Karabakh/South Ossetia/Abkhazia/Cyprus/Turkey/Northern Cyprus/Akrotiri/Dhekelia and in lesser sence Uzbekistan/Tajikistan/Turkmenistan/Kyrgyzstan/Mongolia e.t.c. consider them to be european and 50% not, it's definitely easier to include those countries on both lists for easiness as some would only search their country only on the one of the continental lists Captain armenia (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because 5% of Turkey is in Europe, it does not make Turkey an European country. Turkey is still an Asian country. That whole list of the European countries needs to be redone, because it also has Cyprus as being European, yet on the map, it is shown as Asian. Norum 00:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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

Mount Athos

Should the autonomous monastic state of Mount Athos, within the territory of Greece, but specially administered, be included in the Special Areas section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.81.253 (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you can find an outside source placing it in a similar category. CMD (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought the sources already cited in the existing wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos were proof enough of this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.230.42 (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

None show it has special status under an international treaty. CMD (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Joint Declaration 5 of the Final Act of Greece's accession to the Schengen Treaty http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:42000A0922%2806%29:EN:NOT acknowledges the special status of Mt. Athos with regard to the treaty for one...I am going to make a redoubled effort to search out others not cited in the article that explain its status in more detail if that's not enough... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.61.218.62 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That treaty wasn't about Mount Athos, but Greece's ascension. This is in comparison to Aland, which had its status recognised by a special league of nations treaty, and Svalbard, whose status was determined with its very own multilateral treaty. Both Aland and Svalbard have level-1 ISO codes, and appear in publications like [17] and [18]. CMD (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

But the treaty recognises the special status of Mount Athos, which has been in force long before the modern Greek state was founded, going right back through Ottoman Rule to the Byzantine Empire, when the monasteries were founded...The current wikipedia article mentions the chrysobull of Emperor Basil I in 885 proclaiming its special status and the fact that the monks pledged allegiance to the Ottoman Emperor in 1430 giving rise to the fact that the special status was maintained throughout the period of Ottoman Rule through to Greek Independence where its status continues to be retained in Article 105 of the Greek Constitution...1100 years is a very long time for a special status to be in existence, but there is no doubt that such a status does exist and, whilst it may not be the same kind of status enjoyed by Aland and Svalbard, it surely has a good case to be mentioned separately in this article as a territory with a different status to that of the country in which it is found and a status whose uniqueness is recognised and respected by the European Union... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.139.85 (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/454 "In 1926, the Greek Government ratified a charter based on the long tradition of the Typika. In 1977, when Greece became a member of the European Common Market, the signatory states recognized the specificity of the self-governing region of Athos and its special status. The 360 km2 of Athos are exclusively inhabited by men, the majority of them monks living in coenobitic or idiorrythmic establishments, anchorites, or wandering brothers. The Typikon granted by the Emperor Constantine IX Monomachus in 1046 and signed by more than 100 heads of religious communities, banned women and more generally all 'smooth-faced persons' from entering the mountainous region. Power in this monastic republic is strictly divided between three assemblies: the Synaxe, or the Holy Assembly, which meets twice a year, holds the legislative power; the Holy Community holds the administrative power, and the Holy Epistasie holds the executive power. At Karyes, a civil governor of Athos, under the Greek Foreign Affairs Ministry, ensures that the Charter of 1926 is respected." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.54.29 (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt it has a special status. The question is why that status would entail its mention on this page. There is no disagreement it is part of Greece, the others are included because they are sometimes treated separately. CMD (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I would move though that that is not quite the full case...The Governor of Athos is appointed by the Greek FOREIGN Office to ensure the 1926 Charter between Greece and the Athonite Monks continues to be observed. The territory is within Greece and under Greek protection but its ultimate legislative responsibility rests with the Ecumenical Patriachate of Constantinople in Istanbul, Turkey...The territory has its own laws, its own government and its own unique entrance requirements, many of which are different from that of Greece or anywhere else in Europe. It is not a sovereign state, but it is self-administered and autonomous. It seems to me to fit the description of an autonomous area within Greece but with special status perfectly... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.61.242.176 (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A border includes what it borders on?

Recently an anon asserted that Iran was in Europe.

Based on that division, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkey and Iran have territory both in Europe and Asia.

As far as I can figure, because the Caspian Sea forms part of the border of Europe, and Iran borders on that border, that means the border includes both sides of the border? That seems to be a stretch, yes?

I've reverted, but if there's a justification you can think of, re-edit or revert. Shenme (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What to include in the list.

I think the arms should be kept in the table, since heraldry for centuries has been used to identify countries and other geographical entities in Europe. Each coat of arms is a piece of visual information which functions as a primary symbol for the nation state. As such I think it should be included in this table alongside the flag and map etc. - SSJ ^t 22:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If some states (nation states and others) don't even have coats of arms, they're clearly not a primary symbol. CMD (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This regards Europe, and for almost every European state it absolutely is a primary symbol. The fact that Bosnia, Kosovo, Georgia, Russia, Slovenia and many more very recently have adopted new coats of arms, goes to show that European countries think its quite essential to have one.

There are very specific reasons why a few of them don't. Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkey are hardly a European countries, the undemocratic and backwards-looking Belarus unsurprisingly has kept the Soviet state symbolism of the sort that was replaced by coats of arms in most Eastern European countries in the 1990's. Macedonia has also kept its socialist emblem, but that's purely because its parliamentarians don't agree what heraldic motif to pick. They agree the socialist imagery is unfortunate when being a modern European country, and that a coat of arms would be appropriate. See here. Having a coat of arms clearly is considered important, because it means that you are following a distinctly European tradition. - SSJ ^t 17:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't written from a European perspective, but a global one. It also isn't about European traditions, and at any rate a tradition does not justify inclusion on this list. In addition, the idea that somehow the inclusion of western european symbols is a good idea whereas the inclusion of soviet ones is not seems to run against the principles of NPOV. CMD (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@SSJ: Why do you refer to two Caucasian countries like Azerbaijan and Turkey but not Armenia and Georgia, their neighbours? Maybe you think Armenia is not independent from Russia yet, but what about Georgia? I know, I know it is the last presidential elections, right? Or is it related to religion or something? (Sorry, I forgot that these two have coats-of arms.) What about "undemocratic and backwards-looking Belarus"? Was Germany not Europe during the Nazi period? In these times of crisis if a dictatorship comes back to Athens again it will not be European then? Spain, Italy, Portugal were not backwards a short time ago? (Been to the countryside in Portugal lately? In late 80s when I first toured Greece finding a "western-type" WC was a difficult issue in between bigger cities like Salonica and Athens. Within this century (2000s) I saw one in Galicia, Spain. Yes I am talking about "a la turca" WCs that we still have many in my own country, Turkey.) I gave all these silly examples to meet you at the level of absurd you are wandering around... Coat-of-Arms? Symbol of being European? Really?.. --E4024 (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijan, Turkey and Kazakhstan undoubtedly are on the fringes of Europe geographically and culturally. The fact that most Eastern European countries adapted new coats of arms surely was because they politically wished to follow with the tradition of having arms for countries - a tradition which consistently has always been important in what was called Western Europe. This contrasts soviet symbolism, as seen in Macedonia. It's probably not a coincidence that they didn't simply choose a great seal like the USA. - SSJ ^t 20:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@CMD: The degree to which heraldry is dominant and relevant in Europe surely must influence what is included in this article. If a list of US states was made, I reckon it wouldn't be terribly far-fetched to include their seals for instance. I'm not saying "who are the goodies and who are the baddies", I'm just pointing out that one custom is conventional, overwhelmingly dominant and common in Europe. Therefore it is relevant IMO. - SSJ ^t 20:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

If a seal is something that US states must have, then perhaps so. However, there's no reason sovereign states must have a CoA, and if we had the column there'd be no reason to pick one convention for a symbol over others when those symbols are meant to serve the same purpose. I also disagree that this article should be written from a European rather than a global perspective on states, especially as it is part of a set. CMD (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that every new country that has emerged since communism has adapted one, clearly indicate that having a coat of arms is a de facto requirement. Just like a flag is a de facto requirement. The UK flag is for instance only used by convention, not law. There is in my opinion no need to take into consideration what other articles include or exclude. Nothing would change in wikipedia if that was a principle being followed. Wikipedia should indeed have a global perspective, but when focusing on one specific area, it's not wrong to make the article reflect what's relevant in that area.

Globally, it is common to define flags and coats of arms in constitutions. These symbols enjoy a special position. Logos and other symbols are on the other hand almost never mentioned. Wikipedia is not supposed to ignore what's conventional. - SSJ ^t 08:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No, if it was a de facto requirement, Italy would have one. On the other hand, every country has a flag. As for wikipedia following what is conventional, it's conventional for secondary and tertiary sources to identify countries with flags. That we even have coat of arms in infoboxes is pretty unique. CMD (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Italy is an exception to the general rule. If that country hadn't had the very special history of getting rid of its king and the king's coat of arms after the second world war, Italy would probably have had a coat of arms today. The practice of practically all other countries in Europe indicate this. The few exceptions shouldn't dictate I think. "it's conventional for secondary and tertiary sources to identify countries with flags"? - SSJ ^t 16:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's irrelevant how examples are explained away. The point is that coats aren't a universal symbol of statehood, and I find it hard to expect that they'll help a reader to identify a country. It's not the exceptions that dictate what other sources do, it's what the other sources do that dictates this. As a few examples, the UN lists members by flags. More close to Europe, so do the Council of Europe and the EU. Neither the CoE nor the EU even shows coats on the country profiles. CMD (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The numbers clearly indicate that arms are a universal symbol of statehood within Europe. Among the countries entirely within Europe, all have arms, with the sole exception being Italy, with the aforementioned reason. Neither am I saying that users primarily are expected to identify countries on this list by looking on the arms, but they nevertheless are quintessential symbols of each state, as their prominent place in treaties, constitutions, passports, embassies and indeed wikipedia country infoboxes, prove. - SSJ ^t 09:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You have a different understanding of the term "universal" than myself (and missed Macedonia). Even if it was universal, that still doesn't by itself justify inclusion. Every state, in Europe and the world, has a head of state, a currency, etc. We don't include everything, just what will help the reader identify them. CMD (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Let us split the article: "European countries with coats-of-arms" article and "European countries with no coats-of-arms" article. I prefer my country to be in the same list with the sympathetic Italy. --E4024 (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"We don't include everything, just what will help the reader identify them." I doubt the area or number of inhabitants help people identify countries in this list; general, important information is included for each country. Much like a mini infobox. In the real country infoboxes, the coat of arms is equally prominent as the flag, which indicates just how important arms are to these countries. The overwhelming majority of European states has coats of arms, and common sense would be to take such overwhelming majorities into account. - SSJ ^t 08:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Very true that area and population won't help with identification. However, they are stats included just about everywhere when discussing countries. Coats are not. I personally wouldn't call these tables mini-infoboxes, because they are far more general and can't be tailored to specific states. Inclusion in the infobox isn't a reason for inclusion here, but if it were, it's useful to note that our country infoboxes can easily include state symbols or seals or the like, which you seem quite against here. CMD (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. No, coats of arms aren't very important. But every country has an "emblem", so if you want to put a small thumbnail of the official "emblem" next to the flag, which in most cases is going to be a coa, I don't really see anything terrible would happen. Nobody suggests the coa should be shown instead of the flag, surely?

More importantly, what to list: Georgia has a handful of villages in Europe according to the now-standard definition of Europe. So technically it is trans-continental. Very technically, I suppose less than a 1000 people actually live in the European part of Georgia (Georgia has parts "in Europe" just by coincidence of the main watershed of the Caucasus not exactly corresponding to the national border).

If we are going to be geeky enough to list Georgia as trans-continental on such a technicality, surely, we will need a separate section for trans-continental countries? Among the trans-continental countries, Russia is the only one which has its demographic center and the clear majority of population in Europe. The others are Asian countries with some marginal territory in Europe. So let's please make an effort at specifying what percentage of population lives in the European part of these countries. After all, they are also going to feature in the "list of Asian countries", and those which are in Europe only "marginally" are at the same time "substantially" in Asia. Yeah, and it should go without saying that if we are geeky enough to list Georgia on a technicality, this is no excuse to just list random countries with not a single square-foot in Europe (Armenia keeps popping up for some reason. I don't understand why. Armenia would like more territory than it has, but all the territory it is after is in Asia, not in Europe, so not only is it 100% in Asia, it would even like to cover a larger part of Asia. It has no ambitions in Europe. So not even if you take the (unrecognized) position that Armenia should own most of what is now Eastern Turkey, it would still be 100% Asian). --dab (𒁳) 09:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Dieter, the issue of transcontinental territories has been discussed innumerable times on the main article Europe. Some countries like Malta, Cyprus and Armenia, that are geographically not in Europe, are considered to be in Europe politically. Different sources, such as those listed in the notes for "Europe", give different classifications and the lede makes it clear about possible ambiguities. Disputes often arise about the transcontinental countries such as Georgia, often started by socks of banned users. Experience shows that, provided the ambiguities with countries like Georgia and Armenia are spelled out in the text or footnotes, no confusion can arise. Turkey is another example of a country that is geographically only partially in Europe (Eastern Thrace) and, yes, Armenia is a country that has shrunk or been displaced since the times of the Crusades. Mathsci (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice chat really, in Turkish we call this kind of NOTAFORUM thing "stag chat". It is like a stag party, no need to be kind as there are no girls around to impress: Burp, f..t, feel free. (This is a joke. :-) I wonder from which European territory some has shrunk but in Turkey's former territory in the Balkans and "Central Europe" now there are... umh forgot it, how many "European countries"? Any recent further divisions lately that I may have missed? Spit it out. The coat-of-arms thing is serious; we cannot have countries without one in Europe. As Turkey is republican now, we left aside the Ottoman coat-of-arms; maybe we can use that in the article as "Turkey's former/last coat-of-arms". We can also find sources that more than 70-75% of the country's population is crypto-christian... (This was another joke. I do not want to be referred to as an RS in WP articles. :-) Let us do something easier: Let's merge Asia and Europe in one Eurasia article. In the end in Europe Turks work everywhere and we sell and buy Chinese stuff everywhere; why are we (or you, or they) trying to pretend Europe and China are not part of a same territory. BTW have you noticed that Iran has also been displaced lately; from the Danube River to the Aras River, near Armenia. at least since the Persian Empire. (Oh, s..t; when I write Persian Empire it redirects to "History of Iran"! Note: You may remove this talk of mine if it is more absurd than some others I have read in WP during my 6 months stay. --E4024 (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Armenia does not haves any land in continental Europe

If this article is only about Geographical location and not cultural or demographical, then remove Armenia from Europe as it does not haves any land in Europe --Obitauri (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Israel

Like Armenia, Cyprus is also located entirely in the traditional borders of Western Asia. If you leave a sentence like "Armenia is entirely in Southwest Asia but is a member of certain European organisations." then you should also include Israel in that list, as it involved even to a greater extent in European institutions. Israel considered part of Europe in all International sports events and associations including FIFA, FIBA and the Olympic games. Its is a member of the European divisions of international sport associations (such as UEFA). Just recently Israel hosted the 2013 UEFA European Under-21 Championship, the 2014 European Weightlifting Championships and the European Fencing Cadet and Junior Championships 2014. It will host the European Short Course Swimming Championships in 2015 among other European sports events in the following years.

According to Wikipedia, Israel has been represented frequently at the Eurovision Song Contest, the Israel Broadcasting Authority (IBA) being a member of the European Broadcasting Union which is responsible for the event. Israel participated for the first time in 1973. Israel has participated a total of 36 times, winning the contest on three occasions: in 1978, 1979, and 1998. As a result, Israel has hosted the contest twice, in 1979 and 1999 (in 1980 the IBA declined to host the contest for a second successive year). Israel has never finished last in the contest.

Israel is also a neighboring and associated state of the European Union. The relations between the two are framed in the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP), the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, and the Union for the Mediterranean.

Israel is a member of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). In the UN, Israel is a member of the Western European and Others Group. It is also a member of Horizon 2020 (The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation) and of many other EU programs. UNESCO World Heritage Centre listed Israel under "Europe and North America"

According to Wikipedia, various Israeli ministers have expressed that they would like to see Israel in the EU. Former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who visited Israel in February 2010, said that his "greatest desire" was to see Israel join the European Union. The European Union's former High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, stated in 2009 that Israel had a very significant relationship with the EU, amounting almost to full cooperation through participation in the EU's programs. Moreover, like most western European countries, Israel is a member of the OECD and from an economic perspective matches the European Union extremely well, with essentially every significant economic indicator (GDP per capita, government deficit, public debt level, current account surplus, inflation level, etc.) closely matching the overall EU average (If Israel will eventually join the EU it wont be the first country whose location is geographically in Western Asia. Cyprus is an EU full member and it is considered to be in Western Asia as well)--Abtalion (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo is recognized by a majority of states

Kosovo should be moved up into the recognized section because it is recognized by a majority of states (either by just UN, or even including other non-UN states with limited recognition). As Armenia is also a partially recognized state yet in the recognized section, Kosovo should be moved into the recognized column or Armenia moved down into the partially recognized column.XavierGreen (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no majority in the descriptions used here. If you think it's better we could copy over the wording from the main List of sovereign states. CMD (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Like i said, if Kosovo is not to be listed in the top section then under the current framework of the page, armenia should be listed in the bottom section since it is partially recognized.XavierGreen (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo is not recognized by the UN. --maxval (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The United Nations does not recognize states, it is not a state itself.XavierGreen (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Per your opinion? Why are you assuming something is either 50% or 100%? CMD (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

SMOM

How about placing Sovereign Military Order of Malta on the list? According to it's article, it's "widely considered a sovereign subject of international law". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.8.152.31 (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It is considered a sovereign subject of law, but it is without any sovereign territory, so is not included on this list of states. CMD (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkey.

Don't you think that this Asian countries.--Alex 47346 (talk)

They all lie mostly in Asia. However, parts of Russia and Turkey are in Europe. WadeSimMiser (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Russia

76% percent of the territory of Russia is in Asia.--West457565 (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

European Union

Hello, I suggest adding a section for the European Union, due to it's importance nowadays, thank you have a nice day. --Darekkk (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

What about the Lugansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic?

What about the Lugansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.64.30 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Should there be a list of so-called "partially recognised states"

There was a section on so-called "partially recognised states". This listed six claimed entities in Europe that "have partial diplomatic recognition by one or more UN member states (and therefore are defined as states by the constitutive theory of statehood) or have no diplomatic recognition by any UN member state but are defined as states by the declarative theory of statehood and are recognised by one or more Non-UN member states. None are members of the UN, Council of Europe or EU."

Whether this should be present is disputed. An editor said that the section was "original research and synthesis. Especially when that OR and SYNTH is erroneous. Add reliable sources which say these are sov states according to "declarative" theory or keep it out"[19]

What do people think?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Basically, there needs to be a source which states that these states are sovereign according to the declarative theory of statehood. Otherwise, it's some Wikipedian's interpretation of this declarative theory of statehood. In other words original research and synthesis. Volunteer Marek  08:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It's all sourced at List of sovereign states. For the states that qualify under the declarative theory of statehood, here is a source: Ker-Lindsay, James (2012). The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States. Oxford University Press. p. 53. ...there are three other territories that have unilaterally declared independence and are generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria for statehood but have not been recognized by any states: Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland.. TDL (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that would justify the article listing Transnistria and Nagorny Karabakh, providing the citation was made for them. It would not justify the other four.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The other four were never justified by invoking the declarative theory of statehood. They were justified since they "have partial diplomatic recognition by one or more UN member states". Sources to support this can be copied from the wiki articles linked to under the "status" column. TDL (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Scotland et al

Seems an obvious question, but eh, someone keeps reverting so discussion here is appropriate.

Does Scotland belong on this list per this edit?

My take is that the answer is - blindingly obviously - "no", because Scotland does not "have a political arrangement which was decided through an international agreement". This is consistent with the intention of this page. If Scotland is included, the list might as well include every region, state, province, autonomous community etc in Europe because Scotland does not have any salient feature that is not present elsewhere. Kahastok talk 20:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Scotland has always been and will always be a Soverign Country within a Union of Countries very much unique from other countries! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.136.80.172 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Scotland is not a sovereign state, and hasn't been for over 300 years. There was a referendum on the subject eleven months ago, which confirmed this status. There are sovereign countries within Europe inside a union in this list - but the union is the EU and the member state in Scotland's case is the UK.

And in any case, you're not claiming Scotland as a sovereign state, you're claiming it in terms of:

"The following places are considered integral parts of their controlling state, but have a political arrangement which was decided through an international agreement."

If this was the case, we'd have to include most similar entities across Europe. Scotland has no salient features that it does not share with (at least most of) the states of Germany, provinces of Italy, autonomous communities of Spain and the regions of Belgium, for example, and many of those have salient features that Scotland does not have. Northern Ireland is different because it owes its status not just to UK law but to international agreements between the UK and Ireland, such as the Good Friday Agreement. The UK can't change certain aspects of Northern Irish policy because of the Good Friday Agreement. Similarly Finland in Åland and Norway in Svalbard. But not Scotland. Kahastok talk 21:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Scotland has soverignty! More So than Northern Ireland, so i Scotland is to be removed so should Northern Ireland as Scotland has more Soverignty than NI! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.136.80.172 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit silly. Kahastok explains it perfectly. Unless someone can point to an international agreement that governs Scotland's status, it doesn't belong in this section. Fitnr 23:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Act of Unin is the international Treaty! the Scotland Act then created the new Scottish Parliment, Soverinty is wit hthe People as always not Parliment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.136.80.172 (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

An agreement between two countries to dissolve and combine into a new country is obviously different than an international agreement that limits sovereignty within a region. And the Scotland Act was an act of parliament, not an international agreement. While Scotland has a certain level of autonomy, it doesn't fit into the very specific section in question. Scotland is, on the other hand, listed on this page: Autonomous administrative division. Fitnr 23:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Scotland is not an Automomous Administrative divison, it is a Country where all sovereignty is held by the people of Scotland, that cannot be removed, in other countries like England, USA etc sovereignty is held by parliament

One has got to question your motives for removing scotland, looks like unionist english government which is a tax junkie on Scottish tax to try an assimilate Scotland as a county of England! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.136.80.172 (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Scotland is also not a Dependant Country of UK lie Channel Isles, as England is actuially dependant on Scottish Tax and Exports — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.136.80.172 (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Northern Ireland?

What's Northern Ireland doing on this list? 24.180.56.157 (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you look at the WP:TITLE of the article? Self-explanatory. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is a territory governed under an international accord. This is a relatively rare situation that means sovereignty is more complicated in NI that in most other parts of Europe, so it's included in a distinct list. Fitnr 21:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Armenia is actually Asian Country

Hi - as follow armenia should not be in this article as it is Asian Country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia#Asia.E2.80.93Europe_boundary)

Kind regards

Arek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.224.84.65 (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not necessarily reliable as sources - not least because they are sometimes hijacked by special interest groups. You need to look at reliable sources. For example, [www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17398605 this BBC article] stated that Armenia is in Europe.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Liberland

What about Liberland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.181.151.2 (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a sovereign state, it's an unrecognized micronation with no population. - SantiLak (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo

I was perusing this page and noticed the entry on Kosovo contained a biased, incorrect and poorly written statement, that Serbia "along with the rest of UN members..." considers Kosovo a breakaway province. Not only is the English poor for its lack of a definite article before "UN" but it is completely untrue that the entirety of the UN considers Kosovo a province of Serbia. I surmise, based on the telltale Slavicism of the omitted def. article and the national bias that the author of the statement was a Serb who was operating on incorrect information. (Alexander M Moir, editor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.24.133.4 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree, Alexander, but I see that you have edited our article appropriately now... BushelCandle (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

English short vs common

i see comments about English short means common, so why not change the title on the column then? Newyearbaby (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I have implemented the change you suggested.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Czechia

The Short Name of Czechia should be changed to its short name, Czechia. The Czech Republic is its Formal Name. I understand that Wikipedia strives to be consistent with the common name rule and I do agree that Czech Republic is still the more common name. But this particular list is not a list of the common names. It is a list of Short and Formal names. And even though most people still choose to call the country by its Formal Name doesn't mean the country doesn't have its official short name. It does. It's Czechia, and it should be listed here. Thank you for your consideration and have a wonderful day :) --Danda Panda (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I support Czechia treat this like all the others and list the official short form. Newyearbaby (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Seriously why is this even an issue. the column says formal name and short form. Czechia is the offical short form name. What do the opponents have against this? Newyearbaby (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the active article name discussion Talk:Czech Republic is a better place for this conversation. It's easier for everyone involved if relatively minor articles like this follow the consensus set in main articles. Fitnr 04:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a sensible general rule. The standard practice on secondary articles such as this has long been to use whatever the name of the article is, except in fairly exceptional circumstances where the decision to do something else is either blindingly obvious ("Georgia (country)") or where there's otherwise a clear consensus to do so (e.g. WP:IRE-IRL). Neither of these points applies here. Kahastok talk 18:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Column says one thing (English short) but it actually lists English common short names. A new section started in Czech Republic talk page. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

In English as it is actually used, the short form name of the country in question is "Czech Republic".

But that's irrelevant. We should reflect the title of the article, and the article title is "Czech Republic" not "Czechia". Kahastok talk 20:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

YES Czech Republic IS common name, wikipedia article name and so on, as discussed and approved in the article about Czech Republic. BUT the column does not say "here comes wikipedia/common name of the country"- It says English short and formal names with links to official sources, where you can easily find, that Czechia is official English short name. These sources are totally ignored and replaced with Wikipedia's thought on the subject. So 1) it ignores official sources or rather 2) column name leaves space for interpretation what it really lists (if there are links to official documents it may be suspected that all is derived from them, not filtered through wiki frequency analysis). :::::I suspect you would rename company named ABC Czechia (not a real one, just example) to ABC Czech Republic only to match all occurrences on wiki on one term. Can you do it when citing concrete facts or sentences from formal documents and recommendations?!

In conclusion my proposal is: the column would contain only "Czech Republic", and only once, not twice repeated (see - Ukraine or Georgia aren't repeated), with small referenced note about Czechia being official but rarely used, and link to article about it. It can't hurt, the article contains a lot of notes and I don't see why to leave it. It does not help Czechia one bit, nor it is a promotion, but it may be satisfactory compromise since it is in mentioned in linked official documents as official short. Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The rights and wrongs of "Czechia" vs. "Czech Republic" are entirely irrelevant for our purposes. What's relevant is that the relevant article is at Czech Republic. If you don't like that, go there and request a move and get consensus for a change.

Having the "Czechia" vs. "Czech Republic" on every single article individually achieves nothing but waste everyone's time. Kahastok talk 21:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a different kind of case. Here the table poses as official data (copied word for word name after name directly) from official linked sources, in other words article may be read as: according to official database sources official short name of Czech Republic IS "the Czech Republic" and nothing else, and it is simply not true. Is it justified fear? You'll say no, I'll say let's not risk and let's add a small clarifying note, the article is full of them :) That's all, no battles in articles about agriculture, music or train stations in the Czech Republic, just note or a paragraph in every article dealing with the name of countries (this one, Czech Republic, Name of the Czech Republic and that is maybe it). Enwiki is maybe little oversensitive to name Czechia, opposition rises immediately and Wiki editors do not investigate if in some particular rare cases it is really justified to include it. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The column gives the conventionally used English name of the country. To use an example, there's no officlal goverment document in Switzerland that refers to the country with that name, but that's the English name of the country. [Talk:Czech Republic]] is the place to go to built consenus on a wiki-wide change to the convention used here. Fitnr 17:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The column name is "English short and formal names" and it contains links to official documents with official short and official long names in English, nothing about "common" names in column name. Switzerland is included in those linked documents so bad example and misunderstanding. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Short names are rarely established through formalities, they refer to common English convention. Sometimes governments or organisations decide to promote a particular name, sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. Czechia simply hasn't made headway in this respect. CMD (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Well in case of newly established countries there is no "common" name so government pushed official name is first choice (for sources thus for wiki). OK, let's say linked sources are for long formal names only, but it does not deny possibility to add small note to explain that official short exists. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry i just find this silly. The country has an official short form English name and people on wikipedia refuse to even list it on a list that includes short form names. My guess if they didn't have an official short form name yet people wanted to add Czechia, the argument against it would be it is not official. Newyearbaby (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It is amazing how wikipedia hates the word Czechia they even change the name of the column to avoid having to use the official English short form Czechia, why do you people hate the word Czechia so much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.64.186 (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Column name and hatred of the word Czechia

English common and formal names was unilateral changes by a user Toddy1 after an "edit war" without discussion with anyone from short form. It was done to prevent the use of the official short form name of Czechia. Has he/she/it/they/hen or whatever gone thru and made sure all the other countries are using their "common" names? Czechia2016 (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Make sure all the countries are treated the same with their "common" name Czechia2016 (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No one "hates Czechia." It's just not a common English-language usage. This article isn't the place to have a fight about this, visit Talk:Czech_Republic. Fitnr 16:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The column was changed to "common name" from English short form name, after it was pointed out that Czechia was the official short form name in English, it may not be hatred but it sure seems like some really don't want the word used even in a column that listed countries short form name. Again have someone or will someone go through all the countries to make sure the table is using their "common" name? This is the place to talk about it because it was about the table on this pageCzechia2016 (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopaedia_761570768/Europe.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120921052748/http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandCrowndependencies/ChannelIslands.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandCrowndependencies/ChannelIslands.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121224033625/http://www.nisra.gov.uk/Census/key_report_2011.pdf to http://www.nisra.gov.uk/Census/key_report_2011.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65uD75yZV?url=http://www.sysselmannen.no/hovedEnkel.aspx?m=45301 to http://www.sysselmannen.no/hovedEnkel.aspx?m=45301

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722013253/http://www.coe.int/aboutCoe/index.asp?page=47pays1europe& to http://www.coe.int/aboutCoe/index.asp?page=47pays1europe&
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110319025613/http://www.coe.int/aboutCoe/index.asp?page=47pays1europe to http://www.coe.int/aboutcoe/index.asp?page=47pays1europe
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110210150745/http://www.visitaland.com/en/facts to http://www.visitaland.com/en/facts

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

updates 2018 February 18-22

and you prove my point again.....can't have the word "Czechia anywhere on wikipeda even change the title of the column again. THANK YOU for saving the world from having to see that horrible word Czechia....you are doing the Lord's work !!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Israel vs Armenia & Cyprus

I do not understand why Armenia & Cyprus are listed as part of Europe while Israel isn't. Geographically, all three countries are wholly in Asia (Western Asia), but Armenia & Cyprus have been included in Europe for geopolitical reasons. I reckon Israel should be classified as a European country for the same reasons. Otherwise, we should exclude all three of them from Europe.

On the other hand, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia and Kazakhstan can all claim to be European countries as they do have part of their territories in Europe, even though some of them, especially Kazakhstan, are generally considered part of Asia. Kenwick (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The map looks odd

The map has a category called "Transcontinental territory most often considered to be within Europe" encompassing European Turkey and Europan Russia (incl. even the Kaliningrad oblast!). I have never heard anyone deny these territories are within Europe, so "most often" seems completely unnecessary and even misleading (no one denies St. Petersburg or Moscow are European cities). "Within the conventional definition of Europe, but part of a transcontinental state" would be more fitting. The category furthermore includes the European part of Kazakhstan, which is geographically in Europe, but which is most often not perceived as European. "Geographically within Europe, but most often not considered to be within Europe" would be more fitting for this area. At least the first of these two issues should be fixed (trying to fix Kazakhstan would likely lead to too many unproductive arguments).--Batmacumba (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Kosovo in its own section

Previously this article followed the split on List of sovereign states. The split made to give Kosovo its own section has numerous issues. First of all, it titles the section with UN states and observers "Universally recognised" when they are not all universally recognised. On the current Kosovo section, its split is unsourced and contains WP:OR, such as that it is below a threshold for "wide recognition". It emphasises control of its territory, which is odd as many of the non-UN states control all of their claimed territory, and some of the UN states don't. On creating a new section in principle, I don't think it helps the reader if we start divvying up the states into more sections, so we should seek to minimise them. It seems odd to have a single-entry section that would easily fold into one of the others. CMD (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this here - it's much appreciated.

Apart from Armenia (unrecognised by Pakistan) are there any other states listed at

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_in_Europe&oldid=896533659#Near_universally_recognised that are not "universally recognised", please?

I take your point about undefined thresholds for "wide recognition" and consequently I have expanded this Kosovo sub-section to deal with that specific point.

I agree with the oddness of emphasising physical control (the historical criterion of the British Foreign Office for diplomatic recognition) in this context and I also agree that we should limit the proliferation of further sub-sections.

Personally I would not object to folding Kosovo into one section (the section presently titled "Near universally recognised") but renamed as "Substantial international recognition". --BushelCandle (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Cyprus is the other country that has issues besides Armenia.

The Kosovo section now has detail for a single country that is not given for any other country, which is undue. What would the criteria for "substantial international recognition" be that groups Kosovo with the UN members and observers, and is it elaborated on in reliable sources? An outstanding question remains why Kosovo was separated from a section it fit within. CMD (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The use in Wikipedia articles of a third category of sovereign states--those with substantial, but not general, international recognition, occurred a couple of years ago when an editor complained that it violated NPOV to group the State of Palestine (which was rejected for UN membership and is not recognized by any G7 country or by most other of the largest developed economies, but does enjoy recognition from over 100 UN members) alongside de facto states with little or no international recognition such as the Republic of North Cyprus, the Republic of Abkhazia, etc. The agreement reached among editors at the time was for Palestine, Kosovo (which is not a UN member state but is recognized by over 100 UN members, including by many major economies), Taiwan (which is not fornally recognized by many countries due to the "One China" policy of the People's Republic of China but which enjoys de facto recognition and relations with a large majority of UN members) and Western Sahara (which is recognized by several dozen countries and is a member of the African Union) to be grouped as sovereign states with substantial, but not general, international recognition, and for the category of de facto states with little or no international recognition to be reserved for the Somalilands, Nagorno Karabakhs, etc.

Personally, I think that, as ambiguous as that "middle category" may be, it is less of an affront to NPOV to place Palestine, Kosovo, Taiwan and Western Sahara there than it would be to group such states with generally recognized sovereign states (a phrase that I think is more descriptive than is "nearly universally recognized" states, although I can live with that term as well), such as Tunisia or Poland, or to group such states with de facto states with little or no international recognition, such as South Ossetia or Transnitria. Of course, like any other consensus in Wikipedia, it is subject to periodic analysis and determination that the consensus still holds. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you please point me towards that discussion. On face value, it seems quite arbitrary, especially with regards to Taiwan. I'd like to know if its criteria can be found in reliable sources. I too prefer Generally recognised, it is better than using variations on universal. CMD (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

While there was some discussion of this subject in the Talk pages for several articles that list sovereign countries, most of the heavier discussion took place in my Talk page because first one, and then a second, editor complained that Palestine shouldn't be grouped with de facto states with virtually no international recognition and posted in my Talk page after I had discussed the issue in the Talk pages of those other articles. That extended discussion can be found in items 16 through 26 of my Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AuH2ORepublican The result of this was that those two editors created the "middle category" for Palestine, Kosovo, Taiwan and Western Sahara in a dozen or so articles that list sovereign states, including the article that we presently are discussing. Unfortunately, that second editor went on to become abusive and disruptive in his edits (including directing ad hominem attacks on me and other posters who were trying to preserve a NPOV in articles), and he was banned from Wikipedia. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It's interesting that this began with Palestine, as on List of sovereign states Palestine ended up in the top section, despite potential misgivings. There is some scope to be more specific on the state by continent articles than the main list, due to having a smaller scope, but I still think it should be done through very clear criteria. Grouping Palestine, Kosovo, Taiwan, and the SADR is arbitrary. I certainly understand the thoughts behind it, but don't feel that it makes for a sustainable base for division. There might be some clear criteria that would pull Kosovo into its own group, but I don't feel it is necessary, especially as we state quite clearly its much higher recognition in the status column. CMD (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if it is *necessary* to place Kosovo in its own category, but I can see how grouping it with generally recognized sovereign states such as France and Bulgaria or grouping it with de facto states with little or no international recognition such as Transnitria or Abkhazia would lead to complaints that such placement doesn't comply with NPOV standards. If proponents of recognition of Kosovo as a sovereign state insist on grouping Kosovo with substantially recognized states while proponents of Kosovo being deemed a Serbian province that illegally declared independence insist on grouping Kosovo with states with little or no international recognition, wouldn't the best way to implement a NPOV be to include Kosovo in a separate category that more precisely describes its level of international recognition? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Implementing something that was determined by various POVs is not a good way to implement NPOV. The specific solution also ignores the possibility for proponents of the recognition of other states with limited recognition to also argue for a unique split, or perhaps proposals to pull some countries down from the top section downwards. The best way to be neutral is to have a clear criteria that isn't based on consideration of any one particular case (to the extent this is possible). Lastly, the sections should not be intended to "precisely describe" levels of international recognition, that is what the status column is for. CMD (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, so what do you propose, one category for generally recognized sovereign states (with the 193 UN member states plus the undisputedly independent Vatican City (which is not a UN member state only because it never has applied for UN membership) and one category for states with limited recognition (lumping together Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara with de facto states with little or no international recognition)? If so, you can be in charge of explaining to complaining editors why it isn't POV to group Kosovo and Palestine with Northern Cyprus and Somaliland--I've spent dozens of hours explaining why those two de facto states, despite being recognized by over 100 UN states, fall far short of being deemed generally recognized by the international community, and it will be more difficult to assuage such complaints without a middle category that at least sets them apart from de facto states without any recognition. I think that the most NPOV position possible is to assert that Kosovo and Palestine aren't generally recognized sovereign states but to acknowledge that they (along with Taiwan and Western Sahara) do enjoy a substantial level of recognition and thus their recognition status is different in type, not in degree, from that of unrecognized de facto states. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

My proposal is to follow the split at List of sovereign states, which divides states into UN members+observers and others, and emerged after far too much discussion about how to categorise states. If it makes it clearer than we can header sections as such. I understand what you're saying, but we lack sources about what a substantial level of recognition is, and why those four states in particular reach that bar. CMD (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, if "List of sovereign states" treats the State of Palestine, which does not have a unified government for its two noncontiguous territories, barely controls its claimed territory, was rejected for UN membership, and is not recognized by any G7 country or by most other large economies, the same as a generally recognized sovereign state, then I believe that such designation is not compliant with NPOV, and do not believe that such precedent should be followed in other articles. There are probably over a dozen other articles that list sovereign states, and they do not conflate UN observer status with UN membership, nor do they ignore lack of recognition from the international community. I would vote against treating the State of Palestine as a generally recognized sovereign state, for the simple reason that it isn't one, and it is POV to pretend that it is. Moreover, I would be opposed to treating the State of Palestine differently than the other states with substantial, but not general, international recognition (Kosovo, Taiwan and Western Sahara); in fact, Kosovo appears to be closer to achieving general recognition than has Palestine, so even if we drew a line between those four states it would be POV to classify Palestine as closer to generally recognized sovereignty than Kosovo is.

The point of the split is that it isn't based on Wikipedian opinions about who is closer to 'general sovereignty'. It's based the question of which entities have been accepted as states by the largest body of states, which is the UN. You could draw a line between almost every non-UN state, and even between some UN states, but this would not be much use to anyone. CMD (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You say that "[i]t's based the question of which entities have been accepted as states by the largest body of states, which is the UN."

But the UN has not accepted the State of Palestine or Vatican City as member states (and in the case of Palestine, rejected its application). The fact that Vatican City and the State of Palestine are both "observer states" of the UN, when the former is a state whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and who would be a UN member but for its preference to remain as an observer (as Switzerland did from 1946 to 2002) and the latter is a disputed state whose sovereignty is not recognized by 11 of the 15 countries with the highest GDP (among the top 15 economies, only China, India, Russia and Mexico recognize Palestine) and whose application for UN membership was rejected just a few years ago, is all the proof one needs that being an observer state state of the UN is not tantamount to recognition of sovereignty by the members of the UN; heck, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have a veto right over any issue of importance, have refused to recognize Palestine, and one permanent member of the Security Council (China) has refused to recognize Vatican City. Besides, observer-state status does not give such states any voting rights that UN members enjoy; being a UN observer state does grant the state the right to join UN specialized agencies, but, then again, Kosovo and the two New Zealand associated states also have been granted membership to certain UN specialized agencies. So the fact that Palestine, but not Kosovo, is a UN observer state is not much on which one can hang one's hat. I know that it's preferable to find a bright-line rule, but if such rule is contingent upon treating UN observer states as if they were UN member states it becomes arbitrary. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I said they were accepted as states not member states. It is correct that as non-members they don't get voting rights, although this seems self-evident. Your assertion that being accepted as an observer state is not a recognition of sovereignty is OR. On the contrary, being accepted as a state means Palestine can now sign multilateral UN treaties as a state. Being accepted as a state by UN members is an not arbitrary line, it is clear and is literally about recognition as a state. (Also, if as you say Vatican City has not been recognised by China, then it does not have undisputed sovereignty.) CMD (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The People's Republic of China does not recognize Vatican City (because Vatican City recognizes the Republic of China (Taiwan) as the rightful government of all of China), and a few other UN members similarly don't recognize Vatican City (just as some UN members don't recognize Israel), but there is no dispute regarding Vatican City being sovereign over its territory. No other country claims Vatican City's territory, and the only country that possibly could claim that land (Italy) signed a treaty with Vatican City in 1929 specifically renouncing any claims to the Vatican City's territory and recognizing Vatican City's sovereignty. That's what I meant by undisputed sovereignty. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

No-one claims the territory of Palestine either (except East Jerusalem). CMD (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that Israel agreed to give up its claim over the land that forms the State of Palestine under certain conditions that Israel does not believe are being met, which is why Israel disputes Palestine's claim to sovereignty. There is a reason why in the List of sovereign states article the column for "sovereignty disputes" says "Disputed by Israel" in the case of Palestine and "None" in the case of Vatican City. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Israel disputes Palestine is a sovereign state, it does not however claim most of the supposed Palestinian territory (although annexing a little bit more was a recent election pledge). CMD (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Have there been any thoughts on this in the past two weeks, and following the discussion on Talk:List of sovereign states? I continue to feel a sourceable clear split is better than the unsourced one that was put in place last October. CMD (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

And I continue to believe that grouping Kosovo with de facto states with almost no international recognition, such as Transnitria or Abkhazia, would be a violation of NPOV. It would have the double effect of adopting Serbia's position that Kosovo is a rogue province without a claim to independence that is worthy of respect (a position that is rejected by most UN member states, including by most of the world's largest economies) while adopting in part Russia's position on its militarily-backed client states Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Turkey's position on its militarily-backed client state of Northern Cyprus that such de facto states are like Kosovo in that their status is "unclear" (a position that is rejected by nearly all UN member states, who have asserted that the inviolability of the borders of Moldova, Georgia and Cyprus is not a matter of debate). The Republic of Kosovo is a different case from that of the unrecognized or barely recognized de facto states, and if Wikipedia is going to remain neutral on the question of Kosovo's sovereignty it should not be grouped with unrecognized or barely recognized states. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

As you might expect, I concur with both the analysis and solution outlined by AuH2ORepublican. I have sympathy for the wish of CMD to try to find objective criteria for distinguishing membership of this third class, but fear the search will be fruitless. Perhaps CMD will find consolation in the thought that we are unlikely to be called upon very often in practice to determine whether new entrants qualify for membership of the third category?--BushelCandle (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@AuH2ORepublican, the criteria I suggested does not adopt any positions, which is it's point. On the other hand, your split is backed entirely on your opinion that Kosovo has a claim to independence "worthy of respect", backed up continuously by your opinion that the size of economies is very important to this. You are also clearly adopting a position on all the other states. Basing things on your opinions is not neutral.

@BushelCandle, I do not believe I found this criteria. I cannot even remember if I was originally for or against it. Nonetheless, it has been stable. I am not concerned about the third category, but about the second. It remains entirely unsourced. CMD (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I have listed this on WP:3O. CMD (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Would you provide the URL so that the discussion can be followed, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BushelCandle (talk • contribs) 04:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Mount Athos

Mount Athos needs to be added as a dependent territory.93.213.169.60 (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't Mount Athos an integral part of Greece? Yes, it has local autonomy, but is it different in kind from the local autonomy enjoyed by Spain's "autonomous communities" or by Scotland or Wales, none of which are listed in the article? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it's a "special area of internal sovereignty", since it's an integral part of Greece but with an autonomous theocratic jurisdiction. See Monastic Republic of Mount Athos.2A02:810A:8D00:24C4:3129:6CD6:FEA8:AAEB (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)