Template talk:Countries of Asia/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

old

Is this going to replace mediawiki:East_Asia, mediawiki:South_Asia etc? --Jia ng 05:04, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, I have only added {{msg:Asia}} to countries that did not fit into any of those sub Asian groups. --Cantus 05:28, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why does the PRC get East Asia and China get Asia? What's the difference? Most of the articles you put this on (eg Turkmenistan) should get mediawiki:Central_Asia. --Jia ng 05:33, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but MediaWiki:Central_Asia does not exist! And I don't have the criteria on hand to make it. --Cantus 05:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Now it does... This leaves us with Georgia, Armenia, and possibly some others in the region. --Jia ng 06:43, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

These are all now "Template:" Rich Farmbrough 18:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

All countries covered now

Template:Countries of East Asia
China | Japan | North Korea | South Korea | Taiwan

North Asia consists of Siberia (Russia) only.

--Cantus 07:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I tinkered with it a bit. I put the Transcaucasia countries in Central Asia and I am contemplating putting Mongolia in East Asia. But other than that, the list is unchanged. WhisperToMe 06:12, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

These groups have been defined by experts, I encourage you not to change them. --Cantus 07:15, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

East Asia claims Mongolia is part of it. --Jia ng 07:50, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Corrected. --Cantus 08:07, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Those definitions are not the only ones that are used. There are different ways to divide Asia into regions. Not everyone defines the countries of Transcaucasia as in Southwest Asia. For instance, my world geography textbook doesn't. Some people include Pakistan as part of Southwest Asia. WhisperToMe 20:23, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

BTW, my textbook is from 2002. WhisperToMe 22:26, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Edit Wars

No edit wars here please? Things can be sorted out here. There is no need for edit wars. --Terence Ong ^Talk 10:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Its instantnood we are talking about here. What else does he know besides edit warring? ;)--Huaiwei 10:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm feeling guilty now, as I am the cause of all this edit wars and controversial edits. Sorry. :(

Hong Kong and Macau should be in the list like what West Bank is (when is not even a country). --Terence Ong ^Talk 10:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Terenece, no idea what your illusion towards West Bank is supposed to mean -- but -- HK/Macau should be on this list because it is what people expect when they are reading about some asian country and then see the template and want to jump to HK......... novacatz 11:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I have the same opinion as you. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

IMHO the disagreement is centred around Huaiwei's very own personal point of view that the word "country" ≡ "sovereign state", that countries which are not sovereign states are not countries. Nevertheless sometimes he refuses to do the same to all other non-sovereign territories (e.g. list of airlines (talk · history · watch)), while sometimes he does (e.g. list of seaports (talk · history · watch)). — Insta ntnood 11:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (modified 09:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

And it is similarly related to Instantnood's insistance on interpreting the definition of the word country to include all kinds of political entities, yet cant explain his removal of or his refusal to accept Tibet, England or Beijing from country lists, since by his definition, all of these would have qualified. I am therefore not so sure if this dispute is solely centered on my personal viewpoint, since we do have folks questioning the inclusion of non-sovereign entities as well in some country lists, and their omission from this template until someone comes along and added them?--Huaiwei 01:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I've never said (nor implied nor tried to mean) " the word country include all kinds of political entities ". — Insta ntnood 04:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't blame yourself Terence. It's a months-long dispute. :-) — Insta ntnood 20:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Who insisted to remove them? — Insta ntnood 11:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Novacatz. enochlau (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Have the two of you ever considered who was the one who added those entries then?--Huaiwei 01:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Countries of the world (linked from the template itself!) should have provided a pretty authoritative definition on what counts, what doesn't, as a "country" in this context. On this reading, Hong Kong, Macau and ROC all count and West Bank doesn't, though Palestine counts. If there is anything wrong with the definition there, then that article will have to be updated, as well as all other templates which depend on it (eg List of countries by continent). --Pkchan 15:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You may be delighted to know, that List of countries is not an authoritative source of reference, and its listing has been and continue to come under contestation. (and I am not the only one contesting it irrespective of how Instantnood tries to make it seem as so)--Huaiwei 01:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I beg your pardon Huaiwei, but I fail to see the criteria of inclusion of political entities into List of countries being disputed on its talk page, much less your contribution thereto. From what I have gathered the separation of List of sovereign states from List of countries, and the general criteria of inclusion to List of countries, has been praised as an advancement to the old debate, and I fail to see any reason for any of us to dispute it here while making no noise whatsoever at the more appropriate and relevant forum, which is here.

By an "authoritative source of reference" I do not mean that the inclusion criteria of List of countries are part of an official policy in Wikipedia (ie those articles under the Wikipedia: namespace), but an authoritative source of reference in this context -- simply because this template, together with numerous other similar ones, reference to List of countries and thus should follow the same inclusion criteria. Anyone is free to create another template of sovereignty states and sovereignty states only, in which case List of sovereign states would be a good reference and, in which case, you should find delight in the inclusion of Palestine, Northern Cyprus and ROC but not Hong Kong nor Macau. --Pkchan 05:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau should be in the template. I don't see any problem over that as they can have their own laws but one country, two systems. You may like to look at the Europe template. We may like to put West Bank, Hong Kong and Macau under Special Territories. That way, everything can be solved. --Terence Ong ^Talk 02:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Territories arent added just because they have their own laws. "One country, two systems" tell you precisely what the two SARS are...places with their own systems, but not countries in their own right. Scotland, a Constituent country is missing from Template:Europe, and it makes the effort to distinguish between independent and non-independent entities, so based on what are we using it as a reference? West Bank isnt exactly in the same class as HK/Macau.--Huaiwei 03:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The same old trouble. What does the word "country" means in "one country, two systems"? What does the same word mean in this template and in the list of countries? None of the folks is requesting to include England, Scotland and Wales to template:Europe or the list of countries. Any reason why? — Insta ntnood 04:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan is not recognized by the UN, so it's not a sovereign state. wikipedia has some errors for this.

Taiwan is not recognized by the UN, so it's not a sovereign state. wikipedia has some errors for this. Acerperi 10:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Recognition by the UN is not a criteria for statehood. It has been kept in sovereign state lists in wikipedia for the past 2.5 years. I dont see the issue here.--Jiang 11:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Like Jiang said, recognition by the United Nations is not a criteria for statehood, UN does not mean everything here. Maybe we can move it to territories instead. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving it to territories would be violation of npov and a misrepresentation of Taiwan's status as a functional state. I think the link to political status of Taiwan is sufficient--Jiang 11:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. It's a territory (as are all others listed), it's even a country by most definitions, but is it a sovereign state? One of the key factors in a territory's statehood is recognition by others. Perhaps the question should be: please demonstrate or source contentions that Taiwan/ROC is a sovereign state. To insinuate that it is when much of the world doesn't recognise this – and particularly the PRC – is arguably a violation of NPOV. If this cannot be demonstrated, it should be moved down and similar notations of the territory's status treated similarly in Wp. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been listed at "list of sovereign states" ever since the list was created two years ago (and four years ago as part of the list of countries). This is a larger issue beyond this template.

It is indeed a territory, but listing it outside the list of sovereign states implies it is not and is therefore not npov. and is it a special territory? What do you mean by "special"?

I'm for returning this to a list of "countries" w/o the categorization. --Jiang 12:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Longevity is not necessarily a reason to maintain the status quo, particularly when it's possibly contentious or misleading. This is possibly a neutrality issue: I can equally argue that given its current status, it is not a sovereign state ... and I'm gauging this against Westphalian notions of statehood which Taiwan/ROC may not fully possess. To say that it is a sovereign state given PRC 'parochialism' over it et al. is arguably POV-ish.

While I'm not wholly fond of using the term 'special', it would seem to fit in that category better than the current one. And as you pointed out, a note regarding its political status is already included to clarify matters. On the other end of it, however, I wouldn't lose sleep if alternate or more generic terms were used, e.g., "territory" (for all of them) or none at all. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You can argue that the ROC is not a legitimate state, but it is at least a functional (i.e. de facto) one. According to the criteria outlined at List of sovereign states i.e. the Montevideo Convention, as well as the constitutive theory of statehood, the ROC qualifies. Most countries, while not maintaining official relations, de facto recognizes the ROC as existing, such as by accepting the use of its passports and opening "trade offices" that perform the functions of an embassy (e.g. the American Institute in Taiwan issues passport, provides diplomatic consul, and reports to the US State Department, not the US embassy in Beijing).

Of course, by calling it a "sovereign state", we are also not making any factual inaccuracies, but the statement can still be disputed over implications of legitimacy. The issue over listing "de facto" states (controversy over entities like Abkhazia and not Taiwan, which everyone belives should stay on the list) has been debated to death at talk:list of sovereign states. --Jiang 03:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In general, most atlas, almanacs, and other encyclopedias imply that sovereign state and country are the same thing because dependencies and so-called special territories that would be listed in Wikipedia's List of countries are in a separate section for all the above mentioned reference books. With the notable exception of Encarta, most non-governmental reference sources places Taiwan in the list of countries and in the list of flags of the world whereas Hong Kong does not appear in such lists. While the United States has no official relations with Taiwan, it does place Taiwan in the "Other" section in the complete list of sovereign states rather than to delegate it into the "list of dependencies and areas of special sovereignty." The bottom line is that we try to balance putting the Republic of China as a sovereign state with the caveat "See the Political status of Taiwan." When one visits the Politcal status of Taiwan, one gets all the gory details that one could possibly imagine. Also, we must take account the concept of "temporal POV." That is, if the Wikipedia existed in the 1960's, we could argue that Wikipedia of the 1960's should not have the People's Republic of China as a sovereign state because most states in the world and the UN did not recognize it, but today, that sounds laughable. We have to balance the change in one's perspective with respect to time with the constant de facto reality of things. Allentchang 23:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Egypt??

hey there, Egypt is not an Asian country! It's in Africa so I think something has to be done here... --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 01:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The portion of Egypt east of the Suez Canal, i.e. the Sinai Peninsula, is part of Asia. — Insta ntnood 20:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Special territories?

How is it that Asia has seven special territories, when there are in fact only four in the world today? Should we reword them to align with Template:Europe?--Huaiwei 00:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has responded in this talk page, and someone has taken the liberty to edit without discussions here [1], [2], [3], I have also taken liberty in executing the following changes:

Removed the phrase "Sovereign states", which did not exist in this table before its unilateral inclusion [4], does not exist in Template:Europe, and which caused major headaches over the issue of the ROC (Taiwan) as per discussion above. Thus, we can now safely have ROC in its current location, plus the inclusion of the Palestinian territories. (Also replaced Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, although this entry may be up for discussion here.)
Removed attempts by multiple editors in adding disputed territories. This is not advisable, because 1. this is primarily a geographical template, and it should cover all territorial areas of Asia without overlap. There is no need to include the disputed territory when both contesting states are already listed, as is the case in other similar templates like this. 2. Adding some of these disputed territories begs questions of why all other disputed territories arent listed. I do not think a list bogged down by all sorts of disputed entries is advisable.
Removed Hong Kong and Macau, which are subnational entities of the People's Republic of China. The PRC already listed in this template covers each of their territory, and if they should be listed, then we probably have to list every subnational entity in all of Asia for the sake of NPOV.
Removed "(4) See Status of Taiwan" . This is a geographical template, and it only includes Geographical notes. The issue of Taiwan is a political one, so it should not be included here.

Feel free to discuss the above edits here, unless one prefers to talk only in edit histories.--Huaiwei 08:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

" Removed attempts by multiple editors in adding disputed territories. " - I guess there are some differences between disputed territories with unrecognised states. Are the Turkish Republic of Northen Cyprus and Nagorno-Karabakh disputed territories or unrecognised states?

" then we probably have to list every subnational entity in all of Asia for the sake of NPOV " - Are Hong Kong and Macao ordinary subnational entities? Anybody ever suggested to include all ordinary subnational entities in the list of countries, since Åland, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Hong Kong, Macao, Svalbard are all there?

" This is a geographical template, and it only includes Geographical notes. The issue of Taiwan is a political one, so it should not be included here. " - Political boundaries are rarely purely geographical or topographical. Countries and sovereign states are all products of politics. A template as such as inherently political. — Insta ntnood 08:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Are the Turkish Republic of Northen Cyprus and Nagorno-Karabakh disputed territories or unrecognised states? Do I need to answer a question which I feel contributes nothing to this discussion?

Are Hong Kong and Macao ordinary subnational entities? Is that a concern for a template based primarily on geography, and not politics?

Anybody ever suggested to include all ordinary subnational entities in the list of countries, since Åland, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Hong Kong, Macao, Svalbard are all there I doubt so, but there are people questioning the inclusion of some or all of these entities in that page.

Political boundaries are rarely purely geographical or topographical. Countries and sovereign states are all products of politics. A template as such as inherently political Nicely writtern (for a non-geopolitician), but there must be an inherent reason why these templates were kept clean from unnecesary clatter except for a simple list of political entities by continent, and have remained relatively stable as a result.--Huaiwei 12:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you re-add Turkish Republic of Northen Cyprus while removing Nagorno-Karabakh? Is politics not relevant to this template, and not relevant to how and why the countries and territories listed came into their beings? Was there any consensus to remove these countries from the list of countries, after so many months since the list came into its being? — Insta ntnood 18:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As I already stated above, the issue of including the TRNC "may be up for discussion here". If you have an issue with it, discuss why, unless your only reasoning is coz you have a personal problem with all my edits. I have difficulty comprehending your second sentence. I probably need to consult my English tutor (which takes time coz I need to engage one). Finally, concensus dosent have temporal conditions. Just because an error sits there unnoticed for years does not mean it is no longer untrue. Duh.--Huaiwei 19:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What about Nagorno-Karabakh? Why is politics not so relevant? Was there any successful attempts to remove these countries from the list of countries, which had become a featured list with these countries included? — Insta ntnood 19:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jammu/Kashmir, the Palestinian territories

Re [5]. [6] [7] - Jammu/Kashmir and the Palestinian territories are not unrecognised states (but Azad Kashmir and the State of Palestine). [8] - Israel exercised effective, though not recognised, sovereignty over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with some administrative duties over the Gaza Strip and part of the West Bank assumed by the Palestinian Authority. They are already covered by Israel to some points of view, Israel and the PA or State of Palestine by some others. Some age-old points of view may consider them to be covered by Israel, Egypt and Jordan. There was already consensus above not to remove Hong Kong and Macao. User:Huaiwei should have discuss and seek consensus before remove-warring with them again. [9] - Why is the Turkish Northern Cyprus Republic included, but not Nagorno-Karabakh? [10] - The ROC may fulfill all the criteria for sovereign state from an academic point of view, yet the reality that it has little diplomatic recognition have to be noted. — Insta ntnood 08:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC) (modified 09:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC))

Kammu and Kashmir are not distinct from Pakistan and India to warrant their own entry. Else, we can start adding Aceh, Senkaku Islands, Tamil Eelam,...perhaps Pedra Branca as well? ;) Who is in control of specific parts of the Palestinian territories is of little concern here, for this is a geographical list. The discussion on Hong Kong and Macau is hardly conclusive for it to be considered a "concensus" here. I hardly see Instantnood discussing anything when adding them, and my initiative to begin discussion here is not reciprocated (claiming he fail to see the discussion is about the lamest one can think of), so from what moral ground can instantnood claim to have to tell others to "discuss before editing"?--Huaiwei 12:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir is listed on Wikipedia as an unrecognised state, but not Jammu, Kashmir, nor Jammu/Kashmir (the two as a whole). The Palestinian territories is not a sovereign state. When I added Hong Kong and Macao to the template, the matter was not discussed here, not to mention the existence of any sign of contentions. — Insta ntnood 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And so? Azad Kashmir is not covered by Pakistan? Of course the Palestinian territories is not sovereign, for since when did I add a "sovereign state" tag to this template? The issue of HK and Macau was of course not discussed here when you added them, because you consistently fail to discuss any contentious edit which you are obviously aware of. Do you need immediate revert wars accompanying all of your cententious edits before realising they are contentious, when all of them basically boils down to just one contentious issue here? I am sorry, but are you taking us as idiots with this kind of commentary above?--Huaiwei 18:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the TRNC covered by Cyprus? Was it contentious when I added Hong Kong to Macao to the template? If yes, why wasn't the addition brought to this talk page? — Insta ntnood 19:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

" I also refuse to accept edits by users who verhemently refuse to use discussion pages, but prefer to revertwar. " [11] " Since no one has responded in this talk page, and someone has taken the liberty to edit without discussions here " [12] - I admit I did not notice the section user:Huaiwei has started here [13], since the edit summary says " Egypt?? ", and the message talks about special territories, instead of unrecognised states, or Hong Kong and Macao, which I consider the key issues in his edits. — Insta ntnood 08:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you must be new to wikipedia and fail to realise that the subtitle in the edit history does not neccesarily indicate the commencement of a new topic. I am so sorry about that indeed.--Huaiwei 12:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Your message " How is it that Asia has seven special territories, when there are in fact only four in the world today? Should we reword them to align with Template:Europe? " [14] said nothing about unrecognised states, nor Hong Kong and Macao. — Insta ntnood 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And how do they not relate to those entities, when I am questioning all of their political status to be classified as such? And I suppose you have also "missed" seeing my subsequent comments [15]? I am so sorry about that.--Huaiwei 18:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The message might or might not be talking about to unrecognised states, and Hong Kong and Macao, but it failed to reveal that at the time when it was posted [16], before you actually made those edits to the template [17]. — Insta ntnood 19:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The List of countries article seems to have been thoroughly discussed and accepted. How about just including all entities that are listed separately there? A slightly narrower option would be to include entities which are recognized by the UN as countries (i.e. they have their own ISO 3166-1 code). --Polaron | Talk 16:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The List of countries article may be thoroughly discussed, but it is that the acceptance level is just as thorough. The country article itself is under siege.--Huaiwei 23:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Re [18] [19] - This section of discussion was started in response to user:Huaiwei's edits that removed some of the entities, but not some of the others that demonstrate certain similarities. — Insta ntnood 21:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

HK and Macau

This issue should have been settled long ago with the overwhelming concensus in the previous discussion that Hong Kong and Macau should be included in the lists, but to reiterate, Hong Kong and Macau definitely merit inclusion in the template due to their unique territorial status. In particular, unlike other mere subordinate administrative units, they in fact enjoy an extraordinary degree of autonomy from their mother country and maintain direct control of many affairs usually reserved for country-level entities.

HK and Macau do not have the same status as other subordinate entities such as, for example, Shanghai. Shanghai does not have the right to control its own customs, borders, and tarriffs, while HK and Macau do. Shanghai does not have the right to field its own seperate teams in Olympic games and other international sporting events, while HK and Macau do. Shanghai does not have have the right to engage in seperate trade agreements, or join the WTO, for instance, while HK and Macau do. Shanghai does not have its own seperate passport and diplomatic offices and representatives in other countries, while HK and Macau do. Shanghai doesn't have its own Top level domain, ISO 3166-1 code, or seperate international dialing codes, while HK and Macau do. Shanghai doesn't have its own currency or monetary policy, while HK and Macau do. And most convincingly, I believe, investment into China by Shanghai isn't considered by the Chinese government to be foreign direct investment (FDI), while investment into the mainland by Hong Kong and Macau is. [20]

Furthermore, placing HK and Macau on the list is in keeping with convention used elsewhere. HK and Macau enjoy seperate representation from China in many international venues, such as the WTO, international sporting events, and so on. Reputable publications such as the CIA World Factbook lists Hong Kong and Macau as seperate entries. And lastly, convention has always been to list Hong Kong and Macau when compiling lists of country economic or population data, such as on GDP, standards of living, development index, corruption indexes, and so on, because of their autonomous governments and economies. To do away with includihg Hong Kong and Macau on such a list is not contrary to both common convention and Wikipedia concensus, but do to a great disservice to the reader. --Yuje 14:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Which "overwelming concensus" in which former discussion are you refering to, for I fail to see any such "concensus". And which "convention used elsewhere" would you like to apply here? My understanding if that the SARS are represented in international organisations as "HK, China" and so on. Why do I not see you writing them as such?--Huaiwei 15:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Hong Kong, China" is the official name only for joining international organizations. In typical convention, when placed on lists, it's named on by its conventional short names, Hong Kong and Macau, respectively. I'll note that even government organizations within China follow this convention, simply name them as Hong Kong and Macau. [21] Nevertheless, I included Hong Kong, China and Macau, China in the template, if that's what's needed to avert an edit war and suspiscions of seperatist tendances from the more nationalistic crowds.--Yuje 15:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No concession please. Russia takes its seat at the UN as "Russian Federation", and Macedonia as "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". the ROC is member of many international organisations as "Chinese Taipei" (but "Taipei, China" at the Asian Development Bank). Yet we don't see these designations on general navigational boxes. — Insta ntnood 21:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No concessions please? Says who? The case of the PRC and ROC are already a major concession in view of the POV issues, so why this sudden demand for "no concessions"?--Huaiwei 11:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(response to user:Huaiwei's comment at 15:21, August 28) See this whole section of discussion [22]. — Insta ntnood 21:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Countries and territories" vs. "sovereign states"

Re [23] - User:Huaiwei has been insisting to remove all those that are not sovereign states, except for the Palestinian territories (State of Palestine is not a recognised state, but recognise by 94 states) and the TRNC (recognised only by Turkey, actual control over its own). Before his edits there were countries and territories in the template, but after his edits only sovereign states (plus two marginal cases) remain. My edit was made [24] to reflect what the template was like as a result of his edits. — Insta ntnood 21:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood continues to lie. This template was originally created on 04:35, 5 April 2004 without any non-independent states [25], until you-know-who comes along and added Hong Kong and Macau on 20:01, 27 July 2005 [26]. I reversed this attempt on 14:04, 8 December 2005 [27], which resulted in an ensuing wikiwar which dragged till today. The above statements by instantnood attempts to portray this current episode of wikiwarring as something intiated completely by my actions, but the edit histories do not lie.

Numerous episodes of wikiwarring has seen instantnood demanding that the article be reverted to the "original version", to which I have commented he makes this demand only when the result suits his desires. Any wonder now, why he does not do exactly the same in this case?--Huaiwei 11:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we just follow List of countries? --Howard the Duck 08:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Because as stated in the article, "The listing of any name in this article is not meant to imply an official position in any naming dispute."--Huaiwei 15:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the phrase "The listing of any name in this article is not meant to imply an official position in any naming dispute." denotes only on the English translation of the name of the country (like Myanmar->Burma). Nevertheless, that list has been the standard for all Wikipedia pages on what country to include, and in what way they should be presented, so I see no reason why we shouldn't follow that. Heck, it's even featured.--Howard the Duck 16:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the article needs to also include a line saying it does not imply any official political position as well then. That list is hardly "standard", considering constant debates over entries in just about any template or lists on "countries", just as it occurs here, and for good reason. A wikipedian attempt in "standardising" lists of countries can easily be interpreted as an official political position by viewers and contributors alike should this standardisation become universal, which is hardly a result the wikipedian community and its founders will want.--Huaiwei 16:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been set as a standard. Several pages use that list as a reference (like the flag gallery, etc.). And even if several debates arise, consensus creeps up, then whatever was agreed upon there will be applied to other pages.

Now on how to make this template look good and to end the edit wars, lets follow what List of countries does: The main section includes the 202 sovereign states, then the next section includes the 36 dependent territories. We will only edit this template if the List of countries is changed via consensus. (Which brings me, why was there an edit war in the first place on this template? I'm to lazy to read everything.) --Howard the Duck 17:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone else opposed to this? --Howard the Duck 01:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Division of countries

Is anyone opposed to diving the list into

Sovereign states will apply on the Asian members of the UN, Taiwan, Palestine, TRNC, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossetia,[7].
Dependent territories (none)
Areas of special sovereignty will include Hong Kong and Macau at the bottom.

All based from List of countries? --Howard the Duck 08:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

From the edit histories, I doubt I will be the only one oppossing this simplistic division and basing it all on nothing but a wikipedian list which is the product of original research.--Huaiwei 09:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As a featured list, I doubt all of those were purely 100% OR. --Howard the Duck 09:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A features list is not neccesarily definitive, nor do they form part of content conventions unless stipulated otherwise. A list of countries which includes other types of territories is for reference to the reader. Does it dictate that they must similarly appear in all other possible instances? Obviously not.--Huaiwei 15:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The List of countries is primarily based on the list of countries by the ISO (see here). The only additions were de facto sovereign but unrecognized states. --Polaron | Talk 18:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the ISO an authority on the political status of the world's territories?--Huaiwei 11:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That list is also what the UN considers as countries. --Polaron | Talk 12:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please show evidence that the UN considers Hong Kong, Macau, Nagorno-Karabakh, the Palestinian territories and Northern Cyprus as countries?--Huaiwei 12:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

See here for the UN list of countries (both sovereign and non-sovereign). Note that unrecognized countries (by their definition) are not listed.

There is also Terminology Bulletin No. 347/Rev.1: Country Names. To be listed in the bulletin Country Names you must either be

a member country of the United Nations,
a member of one of its specialized agencies or
a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice

Note that inclusion in the list does not imply the expression of any opinion by the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country or territory. --Polaron | Talk 13:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Consistency

If we are to discuss consistency [28], mine is based on sovereignty, as I alluded in [29], I feel some entities should be removed as "Non-sovereign territories are already covered in these templates by the respective countries exercising sovereignty over them." Palestine, on the other hand, is not covered by any country currently appearing in this template as far as sovereignty is concerned.--Huaiwei 09:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

West Bank and Gaza can possibly be added, as more npov term... Amoruso 10:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

and Tibet is not an npov term? -- tasc ^words_deeds 10:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Where is the RfC, if you want a comment please make it easy to find--Caligvla 16:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Related discussion

Cf here for a discussion pertaining to this template. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Problematic note

Re [30]. If this is to be applied, then the Republic of China (Taiwan) will have to be removed too.--Huaiwei 15:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Have created {{Dependent and other territories of Asia}} and included Republic of China. Perhaps mention of the RoC should become a footnote in the present template...? Thanks for alert, David Kernow (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

...have been bold and amended template accordingly. (My understanding is that the RoC was ousted from the UN in favo/ur of the PRC sometime in the 1960s/1970s...?) Regards, David (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what is the best option for now, but I am quite sure removing the ROC from this template is going to spark wildfire. ;) Meanwhile it is kind of odd that HK and Macau appear in {{Dependent and other territories of Asia}} when they are neither dependent nor unrecognized countries. They are a subdivision of an independent country with (largely) autonomous political and economic systems.--Huaiwei 16:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re HK/Macau, I'd say they're covered by the catch-all "other territories" description in the name. Re RoC, I've no axe to grind, so will let other folk manage the issue! Yours, David (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not lowering the back to at least one-fifth? --Howard the Duck 13:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Standardization suggestion - please contribute!

A suggestion for a standard approach to the naming, titling and sections of this and similar templates has been made here – please visit and share your thoughts! Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"TRNC"

Re this, it directly contradicts the note at the bottom. I have reverted to the last consistent version by ChrisO. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are true. But if Republic of China (Taiwan) can be in this template, also Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus can be in this template.--Absar (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, Taiwan shouldn't be there either. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Taiwan should be there but Republic of China shouldn't. Taiwan is a country. Republic of China is a state.

Do you have evidence to back up this claim?--Huaiwei (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)