text:
, "if there is new evidence, please produce it".  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  18:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

 * The Cook Islands and Niue are states; no source questions that. Their status is considered to be that of sovereign and independent states by the UN Secretary General, several UN specialized agencies and - in both cases - at least one other sovereign nation. As has been previously discussed, the notion that their status is different from "complete independence" implies that they retain a constitutional link with New Zealand, not that they lack sovereignty or statehood. Ladril (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

OK,if CI/Niue are states we must include them in the section "sovereign states" in such lists as List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania. They still standing in the section "dependent territories" in that list and some similar. Explain please! User02062000 (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I pretty much agree with you on the need for such a change, but I believe there was unfounded resistance to updating other pages to reflect CI and Niue's status. Ladril (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Why? User02062000 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me why. Ladril (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody explain me WHY in the List of sovereign states in the criteria (a) we note that state must declare independence. The criteria (a) is for the declarative theory. But I haven't seen any mention that state must declare independence (when I read the Montevideo Convention). It can be I haven't read all the Convention. Please explain this point to me! User02062000 (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That the criteria say that "the state must have declared independence" should not be taken to mean that it is a prerequisite that a state must sign and proclaim a written declaration of independence. States have come into existence in a myriad of ways. East Timor, for example, had been under UN Administration for several years before effectively becoming a state by enacting a constitution in 2002. Canada and New Zealand, on the other hand, became states by severing their colonial ties with the UK gradually through the course of several decades. Saudi Arabia? It became an independent state in 1932 after a member of the House of Saud triumphed in a decades-long conquest war seeking to unify the peninsula. And there are even oddities that become states by the entering of force of Compacts of Free Association with other states. Bottom line: "independence" can be declared in many ways (including not writing a formal declaration). Ladril (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

But why only criteria (a) of the List of states have this point (must declare independence), not constitutive theory (if constitutive theory will include this point, then CI/Niue would be excluded). And again, point (a) is for declarative theory, but I have not seen such point in Montevideo Convention. Please explain! User02062000 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The rational for that point is that a polity must consider itself to be sovereign to be included. If a polity meets all of the other criteria, but considers itself under the sovereignty of another polity, then it isn't a sovereign state.  There has to be a claim of sovereignty to be included.  Whether that is by a formal declaration of independence, or by less formal means, is not particularly important.
 * While CI/Niue might not have formally declared independence, they have made claims of sovereignty. For instance, the CI's constitution states: "There shall be a sovereign Parliament for the Cook Islands, to be called the Parliament of the Cook Islands."  TDL (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Cook Islands' government website declares that "the Cook Islands people, because of their many natural links with New Zealand, have determined to exercise their right of self-government or self-rule or independence -- call it what you will -- but not at this time as a separate, sovereign State." Cook Islands does not consider itself sovereign, and probably neither does Niue. SiBr4  (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fascinating though this word-play may be, you don't enter into diplomatic relations with other sovereign states, unless you consider yourself to be a sovereign state. Both CI and Niue *have* entered into such relations.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  18:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The quote that SiBr4 linked to is from a document from 1965. A lot has changed in the following 50 years. TDL (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If the Cook Islands and Niue "have determined to exercise their right of independence" then that means they have that right. Arguing they are not sovereign when they the governments of both states have stated at several points in the past that they consider themselves to be sovereign is off the mark, I think.
 * The fact that documents from the sixties and seventies state that CI/Niue had chosen a status different from "full independence" at that time does not mean that these states surrendered their sovereignty but rather that they chose to develop it gradually. Not having complete independence should be taken to mean that these states retain a constitutional link with New Zealand. This link, however, is not a qualification on their statehood but rather reflects a relationship the states entered into voluntarily.
 * The situation is that the term "association" is ambiguous and can mean a lot of different things under international law. It has been applied to describe entities that are universally or almost universally accepted as sovereign states - such as Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau - as well as entities that have no such acceptance whatsoever, such as Puerto Rico. However - and this is crucial- it also always implies a relationship to some other entity (all the aforementioned entities have their status defined by their relationship to the United States). Consequently, whether an association relationship falls on one or another end of the spectrum depends a lot on the specific context and history of each situation. States choose how to judge each case, and the argument here is that the CI and Niue fulfill the list criteria because at least some states have officially proclaimed they recognize them as having the necessary attributes of statehood.
 * In this line of thought, the "association" of the Cook Islands and Niue with New Zealand is far closer to sovereign state status than to dependency status, to the extent that these states have begun gaining diplomatic recognition as independent from other states. Since the current extent of the list includes states with less international recognition than CI and Niue (such as Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh or Somaliland) it is only natural CI and Niue should be included too.
 * In the end, if we have an official communique saying that Japan and Cook Islands recognize each other as independent states, how can we claim that Cook Islands does not intend to be one? Ladril (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for explanation, but I repeat my question: where do you find this point about declaration of independence in Montevideo Convention (it is the main source containing declarative theory, so far as I know). Help please if you can! User02062000 (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Montevideo convention is used as a reference that states the central points of one of the theories that in turn gives support to the inclusion criteria. Neither the text of the Convention nor the theoretical propositions of the declarative theory are the sole central tenets of the inclusion criteria. The criteria are the result of a consensus among Wikipedia editors that is based, to the best of our knowledge, on the most relevant, real-world principles used to determine statehood. Ladril (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

But the theories are academic, Wikipedia editors can't use their own principles to determine states, we must go on sources, not our original research! Isn't it? User02062000 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think requiring that states "declare their independence" goes against what academics have said about the subject. I think they would rather agree with the point. If you only stick to the principles of "having territory, population, government and ability to enter into relations with other states" what is keeping academics - or Wikipedia editors - from classing entities such as the Canadian provinces, the Isle of Man or Iraqi Kurdistan as sovereign states? The declaration criterion serves to explicitly draw a line that has always been present in external sources on the subject. Ladril (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!!! And the last question: why does a state mustn't declare its independence in the criteria of the constitutive theory? For example, CI and Niue have never declared its independence, but considered states only because they are considered such by some another countries such as Japan or China? User02062000 (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, referencing what has been said previously in this section: the notion that CI and Niue have not "declared their independence" is erroneous. As proved in the extensive, sourced discussion we had on the subject, these states want their free association status to be recognized as equivalent to independence by other states. That pretty much satisfies the "declaration of independence" criterion. Again, there is no bureaucratic need for a written declaration of independence before being considered a state. You only need to make clear by your actions that you want to be recognized as such. Ladril (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! But I would like to note that many Wikipedians consider CI/Niue to be not fully sovereign states. They don't meet the criteria of the first, declarative point. I had a long discussion with user Chipmunkdavis about UN non-member states. He noted that "if something not a state (haven't declare independence), there will be limited use for applying statehood for them". This user was participating in the CI/Niue long discussion. I agree with Chipmunkdavis, that CI/Niue are included into our list per the constitutive theory (if they will be included per the declarative theory, is is not correct, because they have not declared independence). Yes, they are recognised by some states, but the criteria (a) they meet only as dependency. User02062000 (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, let me see if I somehow get the point you're trying to make. You are stating that the wording of the section is misleading because the "declaration of independence" requisite is only included in point a) but not point b). I agree with that, but also believe that to be the result of inadequate wording and not really relevant to the decision to include CI and Niue. I don't think the idea the article is trying to convey is that it is possible for a entity to be recognized as sovereign when it has not expressed a desire to be one. Is that what you're trying to argue somehow? If this is your argument, it seems completely off the mark to me.
 * As to the anecdotal claim that "many Wikipedians consider CI/Niue to be not fully sovereign states" which I think is the really substantial part of your last intervention: what can I say except to point at analyses made by reliable, third-party sources? I grant that the situation of CI/Niue is very sui generis and perhaps difficult for many people to deal with (like many other things that defy strict categorization). My personal stance is that their rather unique status means they deserve a place both on the dependent territory page and on this page, because they are neither completely one or the other. A similar situation perhaps to light, which behaves both as particle and as wave depending on different properties. If "many Wikipedians" insist on classifying it only as one or the other then perhaps we should heed them, despite what reliable sources have to say. Ladril (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of maps and atlases, and almost all (perhaps all) of them put abbreviation (NZ) after CI and Niue. In my discussion with user Chipmunkdavis he said "if we must force things into white and black boxes, then CI/Niue are most often described as dependencies". Also, when I moved CI/Niue from the section "dependent territories" to "sovereign states" in List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania Chipmunkdavis has reverted my edit and explain that "CI/Niue are rarely described as sovereign states, and here we can be more specific". What do you think about these comments? User02062000 (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep referring you back to the archived debate, but we *did* discuss maps and atlases in it, and came to the conclusion that the labels you describe could not be taken as evidence of non-sovereignty for these two entities. Also, I'm yet to be convinced that "almost all maps and atlases" use this convention, but even if they did, it would be beside the point, as they are not the only sources on which to base consensus.
 * As to why CMD could have reverted your edits in that other page, I think my previous responses cover it to some degree. Our consensus view is that CI and Niue can be considered to be sovereign states (and thus listed as such). This does not mean that these two entities will automatically be listed alongside all UN member and observer states (just like the non-UN states with limited recognition are usually placed in separate categories from UN members in Wikipedia pages). Even though they are indeed sovereign, their status is widely to perceived to be sui generis and their recognition as sovereign is less widespread than, say, what is the case for Micronesia, Marshall Islands or Palau. This is why you cannot rush to just list them alongside UN members in every page. UN members are more widely recognized as sovereign entities because of their membership (I'm not so sure about observers, since I would not necessarily put Palestine in the same boat with the Holy See, but this is another topic of debate). The way to incorporate CI and Niue in every page and template has to take this into account. Ladril (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain why are CI/Niue on some pages of Wikipedia considered to be "UN recognized non-member states"? I agree that they have full treaty-making capacity in some UN spezialised agencies, but they are not recognised by the UN organization in General (I have not seen them in section "UN non-member states" on the UN website. We have only one reference for "recognition" of CI/Niue by the UN: map "the World Today" from the UN website. But another UN map doesn't consider CI/Niue to be "non-member non-observer states". I argue that CI/Niue are not recognised by the UN in general and there are only 195 states - members or observers (simply, recognized states) of the UN. What do you think on this topic? User02062000 (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Before I respond, can you point me to pages in Wikipedia that consider these two to be "UN-recognized non-member states"? Also, where is this "UN non-member states" section of the UN website located? Ladril (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Here you are an example of such citation from the page Niue: "The United Nations itself recognises Niue as one of two states in the world (the other one being the Cook Islands) that, as of 2013, are neither member States nor observer States of the UN". Here you are a link to the UN Non-Member States section (as I have said, CI/Niue are not included and then not recognized by the general UN). User02062000 (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The text in the Niue page is inaccurate, for the reasons pointed out here. Leaving this case aside, I believe what I've mentioned about the treatment of Cook Islands and Niue is pretty consistent across Wikipedia pages. Special care seems to have been taken to avoid giving them undue weight. Or is there any other example in Wikipedia we should be made aware of?
 * As for the UN page, it is not intended as a list of all states in the world that are not members. It is just a list of those nonmember states that have received an invitation to participate as observers in the General Assembly. It does not reflect the views of the UN regarding the de jure sovereignty of all entities that exist as states. Ladril (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

If the text of Niue page as inaccurate me must change it! Don't you think so? And also, does the UN have a list which include all states it recognizes? User02062000 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be fixed. I have added it to my queue of things to do. As for the UN having a list of "recognized states". I don't think there is any. Ladril (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Then, which source are we using when say that CI/Niue are recognized/not recognized by the UN? Let me know what is your point of view: CI/Niue are recognized or not by the UN? User02062000 (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said CI and Niue are "recognized by the UN". I said that the Office of the UN Secretary General has accepted CI and Niue as sovereign states for the purposes of entering into treaties with other sovereign states. Source here: (scroll down to "Cook Islands" for the relevant part). In the extended discussion we had, consensus emerged to accept this decision as a mark of statehood. Please read the archived discussion under "Cook Islands and Niue" above in its entirety and after you are done, if you have any more questions, I'll be happy to answer them in my talk page (note: when I say "please read it in its entirety first", I mean it). This is already becoming too long for a Cliff's Notes version of the original discussion. Ladril (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll read it through next 1-2 days and ask you if necessary. User02062000 (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"Too long, didn't read" summary of the above (for future reference). The following are the most common objections to CI/Niue inclusion which continue to pop up time and time again, and their rebuttals based on previous discussion and consensus: 1. "But CI and Niue have never declared independence!" They have declared independence in the sense of making it explicit they want diplomatic recognition as states and participation in multilateral treaties as states. The standing consensus is that these facts fulfill the standards for statehood. 2. "But they do not fulfill the criteria for inclusion!" After straw polling, consensus emerged that they do. They have manifested their desire to be sovereign, have their own government, population and territory, and are fully able to enter into relations with other states. 3. "But they share their head of state and citizenship with New Zealand!" Other states accept them as sovereign despite these features. That's sufficient grounds for inclusion. And no, they are not the only sovereign states in history to have been in a similar situation. 4. "But New Zealand is responsible for some of their foreign affairs and defense!" Under international law, 'responsibility' does not entail a subordinate relationship. Switzerland is to this day responsible for some foreign affairs and defense of Liechtenstein, for example. 5. "But they are not members of the UN!" That's why they cannot just be listed alongside UN members in every page and template. 6. But they do not have 'enough' diplomatic recognition as states!" They have more recognition than other entities that have remained undisputed in the page for years. 7. "But they are not 'recognized' by the UN!" The UN does not recognize states per se. It has influence on the relative position of states by choosing who and who not to accept as member states. This influence is a criterion for sorting the list, not for inclusion. 8. "But some organs of the UN (the Secretary General, many Specialized Agencies) accept them as sovereign states! We know they do. This is part of the reason they are included. 9. "But there is a UN map that shows them as non-member states! That map has a note saying it does not express the official position of the United Nations as a whole. Until something more valid comes up, we cannot accept that map as evidence of "UN recognition" and will continue to rely on other arguments for including CI and Niue in the list. 10. "But I still think the list would reflect the geopolitical situation better if we changed the sorting criteria to X! Whatever your idea is, there is a high probability it was already discussed under "Discussion of criteria" above. Please review that discussion, try to understand the arguments that were put forward against proposals similar to yours, and if you still think yours is the best solution, try to find something to say to support it that has not been argued and dismissed already.

In the future, if anybody wants to further argue these points, please review the entire discussion under Cook Islands and Niue first. Ladril (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure that's entirely accurate in terms of points 1-2. For point 1, My understanding is that we've traditionally interpreted "declaration of independence" to mean literally a declaration of independence - since any other means of attaining statehood is probably going to involve getting recognised anyway.  The answer would seem to be that there are many states, including much of Europe, Canada, China, etc., which have never declared independence and that this is not a requirement of statehood.

 * For point 2, the inclusion criterion deliberately works through either/or. Either they have to "have declared independence and [be] often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory", or they have to be "recognised as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state".  If we look at the discussion and particularly the poll, the thrust of the argument was recognition - that both the Cook Islands and Niue were recognised.  A declaration of independence was only mentioned in the negative: that the lack of such a declaration meant that the Cook Islands and Niue could not meet the criterion that required one.  But that didn't matter because they did meet the criterion on recognition.

 * It would be more accurate thus to say that consensus found that we could demonstrate diplomatic recognition in both cases, that this - even taken alone - is sufficient to pass the inclusion criteria. Kahastok talk 17:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I think your points are related to the proposal to change (or rather, clarify) inclusion criteria below, so it would be a good idea to continue the discussion there. Ladril (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll respond here for the time being. But let's see if we can discuss one point at a time, reach consensus, and then move on to the next.
 * As for point 1, I certainly understand the reasons behind your interpretation of the "declaration of independence" criterion. Making a declaration of independence has been a clear way for many states to make their intention to be recognized as sovereign explicit. Historically, it has also served as a way for editors to prevent people from adding non-sovereign (or yet to be sovereign) entities to the list. I certainly get that the "declaration of independence" requirement is a good one, especially if we want to prevent every separatist government with some control over territory to be automatically included as a sovereign state. But given that, shouldn't we make the list criteria more flexible to account for the fact that some entities may achieve statehood by means different than a formal declaration? If, as you say, states have come into being as a result of processes different from a declaration as recently as the Twentieth Century (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and maybe some other Dominions as well), why should not we account for similar situations now? Ladril (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!! I think it is the best explanation of CI/Niue including! These arguments are excellent evidence of CI/Niue status! Thanks! User02062000 (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Ladril - I stumbled across this discussion. I think you are a topper. Your explanations are superb. You put a lot of time in to providing detailed, concise and reasoned responses. I suspect you are a lawyer. Separately, re your piece that CI/N "are not the only sovereign states in history to have been in a similar situation." What jumps out at me here would be countries like Canada during the period when their citizens were all "British subjects" etc. Are there any other examples? Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. Thanks!
 * 2. I'm not a lawyer.
 * 3. Other examples: I recall reading that some countries (mostly African) that formed part of the French Union (later French Community) had no separate citizenship while being separate states according to international law. Ladril (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh well, whatever you are I still think you are a topper.
 * Thanks for the French Union example; I haven't become an expert on it yet but certainly it's comparable with CI/N. For example, Laos established diplomatic relations with the U.S. in 1950 at a point in time when no one apparently regarded it as fully sovereign. By the time Laos joined the U.N., it was still in the French Union but by then styled as sovereign; though I suspect some were sniffy about it. Any way, this is all by the way. Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Vatican City and Holy See question
We list Vatican City as a sovereign state on the list. But in the UN list there is mentioned that Holy See is a permanent observer state. Explain why we consider Vatican City to be a state but not Holy See which is considered state by the UN? User02062000 (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are not two countries. Vatican City is the state established in civil law in 1929. Holy See is an episcopal see of the Roman Catholic Church. KTC (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is very common for the two terms to be used interchangeably - by the media, by individuals, and even by governmental organisations - but there IS a distinct difference, as outlined above by KTC.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  20:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, but why Holy See is in the section "Permanent Observer states" in the UN website? If Holy See is not a state as you say, it must be in the section "observer entities" in the UN list! Somebody answer please! User02062000 (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the United Nations Terminology Bulletin on Country Names, In United Nations documents the term "the Holy See", not "Vatican City State", is to be used, except in texts concerning the International Telecommunication Union and the Universal Postal Union, where the term "Vatican City State" is to be used, as it is the accepted designation of these two specialized agencies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

But why UN uses Holy See name but not Vatican City State which is the state? Please answer! User02062000 (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 * It's mainly just convention. The Holy See is the organisation which holds the sovereignty, and the Vatican is the territory which it was granted in the Lateran Treaty. The Holy See is the sovereign (not the Vatican), hence why it is the member of the UN. Confusingly, the Vatican is referred to as a state, but it is not a sovereign state. In effect, the Holy See and Vatican in combination form a Sovereign State, which the Holy See, as sovereign, represents in the UN. You're correct that the Holy See is not really a state: but that's just the way that it's the phrased. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If Vatican City is not sovereign state as you say, why are we including Vatican into the List of sovereign states? User02062000 (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 * The above is my interpretation based on a bit of reading around of the legal status of the Vatican in response to your question about why the UN uses the name Holy See. In practice, and as far as anyone needs to care, the Vatican City is a sovereign state. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks SuperNintendo but I think in the end you were not able to answer this question. "The Holy See is the sovereign (not the Vatican), hence why it is the member of the UN." We are talking here about "sovereign states", not "sovereigns". Queen Elizabeth is often called "the sovereign". User02062000 wants to know about this, and so do I but I have been too lazy to read up so far. "as anyone needs to care"...we care, this is Wikipedia where we love this sort of stuff. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't try to over-think this, Frenchmalawi. The original question has been answered above. You are correct that "sovereign" is a word used in English for the ruling monarch of a country, as that nation's sovereignty is vested in its monarch. The Sovereign of the Vatican/Holy See is the Pope, as the sovereignty is vested in him, as the ex officio head of the Sovereign entity, the Holy See (because the Holy See is a diocese of the Church, and the head of any diocese is its bishop, and the Pope is the Bishop of Rome). Perhaps it would help to think of another Sovereign entity, but one that has no land - such as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM). This Order is regarded as Sovereign by a majority of the world's nations, even though it has no territory of its own. Now imagine that it were to be given, for argument's sake, the Isle of Wight. The SMOM would still be the Sovereign body, and it's Grand Master would still be the Sovereign, but the Isle of Wight would be its territory. The "nation" of SMOM would be an unusual fusion of a sovereign entity (SMOM) and a territorial place (the Isle of Wight). Now, admittedly, this example is very unlikely ever to happen (!), but it IS what happened at the Vatican. The Holy See was a widely recognised and acknowledged Sovereign entity, and under the terms of the Lateran Treaty in 1929 it was granted territory in Rome, known as the Vatican City State. (In fact the Holy See already owned this territory, but simply as any body owning property within Italy; under the Treaty, the Vatican ceased to be Italian soil, and became the Vatican City State). The Holy See remains the sovereign body, but the Vatican City State is its territory, and the two together effectively form the world's smallest nation. I hope the 'silly' example above may help you to understand the actual situation at the Vatican.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  10:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate your efforts; but none of the above was news to me or added anything from my perspective. Put broadly, under UK law, "Parliament" is the sovereign power. Under the laws of Ireland, sovereign power rests in the "people". No one here is suggesting that the UK or Ireland are not sovereign states, unworthy of inclusion on the list. No one has suggested that "Parliament", or "the people" or analogous terms be added to the list, in lieu of the UK and Ireland respectively. We know these states have their own respective theories on who has sovereignty. It seems that for the Vatican City State, its position is that sovereignty rests in the Holy See. So, does that make the Vatican City State any less a sovereign state than Ireland or the UK? I expect there are explanations out there but I don't think yours quite cuts it. Frenchmalawi (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that your search for a definitive answer is based upon the belief that international law follows a set of consistent rules. In practice, it doesn't: it is much more based on contingency and convention (as the Wikipedia article has it, it is " consent-based governance"). In the UK, under common law, we can take precedent set in one case and apply this to others. In international law, we can't do that. In other words, the relationship between the sovereign and sovereignty in different states cannot be taken to tell us anything about the same relationship in other states. The comparison to the UK/Ireland is therefore not applicable. So, to take, the UK: the sovereign is "The Crown in Parliament". The Crown-in-Parliament effectively 'holds' sovereignty on behalf of the monarchy and the people (hence the merger of the two). In states such where the sovereign is 'the people' (or something similar), sovereignty is conferred from the people to the state, through the process of democracy. The Holy See simply differs again. There is no (particularly) good reason for this: it is convention. There is no answer that will satisfy any desire to fit the Holy See/Vatican relationship into a set of criteria, other than one designed specifically to include it. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This article attmepts to set out the distinction. A nice quote on the issue is: It is argued in this Note that treating the Holy See as distinct from the Vatican City State does not infringe on the Department of State’s authority and, in any case, the Department of State has already implicitly classified the Holy See and the Vatican City State separately, representing the Vatican City State as a “sovereign, independent territory,” and representing the Holy See as “a sovereign juridical entity under international law" In this article, the author reckons that the Holy See is the entity to which the Vatican has transferred some of its sovereign powers, namely those involving international relations. Again, though, that is just an interpretation. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Super Nintendo, thanks for bringing that article to our attention. I note it says things like: Your first response above, wasn’t very helpful. It seemed to ignore entirely the points I made. In contrast the article you drew attention to really did try to address them. The thrust of the article is that U.S. law doesn’t accept a concept of “sui generis” sovereignty and there is no reason why a logical approach to classifying the Holy See shouldn’t be taken too. It’s thrust is that the Holy See is not a sovereign state, while the Vatican City State is. Following the approach of the author, our list would omit Holy See (just as it omits another “agent of instrumentality”, the European Union). Of course it is only the views of the author. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * “This Note... contends that the separate functions of the Holy See and Vatican City State allow the Vatican City State to maintain the requirements of a state with the Holy See acting as an instrumentality towards it.”
 * ”The Department of State has already implicitly classified the Holy See and the Vatican City State separately, representing the Vatican City State as a “sovereign, independent territory”.”
 * ”If it is found that the foreign relations of a state can be “outsourced” to either other states or international organizations, there would be no reason to hold that the Holy See must actually be a state itself.”
 * ”It would seem that, though abnormal, it would a perfectly acceptable concept in both international and U.S. law that the Holy See and the Vatican City State be seen as two distinct entities, one an instrumentality and the other a state.”
 * ”While it may be that the Department of State currently classifies the Holy See as a foreign sovereign, there is no evidence that such a determination has been anything but political in nature.”

The United Nations has recently updated its "The World Today" map
You can see it here. As you see, Niue and the Cook Islands are the only two recognized non-member states of the UN. The State of Palestine is also marked under this, but I'll assume it's a mistake since it should be gold like Vatican City. Should Niue and the Cook Islands be given a green "Recognized non-member" status, as I suggested earlier?  [  Soffredo  ]   02:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

 * No substantive part of the objections that were raised against this proposal six weeks ago have changed. That the map might have been updated is entirely irrelevant, particularly given that it still says:

"The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or any area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries."

 * Your category of "recognized non-member states of the UN" remains nothing more than your own original research.

 * Note: once this closes, I suggest we move both this and the discussion above to Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria/Archive 8. Kahastok talk 11:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

 * This map was used as proof that Niue and the Cook Islands were sovereign states in the archives.   [  Soffredo  ]   13:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I have moved your post below mine to make the conversation easier to follow.

 * That a flawed argument may have been used in the past does not make it any less flawed today. I note for the record that the map in question was not a persuasive factor in the decision that led to the inclusion of the Cook Islands and Niue.  The persuasive factor in that discussion was the evidence of explicit diplomatic recognition by outside states.

 * And I repeat, there is nothing substantive in the map as it was today that makes it any more persuasive than it was six weeks ago. All the arguments used then still apply. Kahastok talk 14:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

 * While the map retains this disclaimer, we really can't use it for the purpose which has been disclaimed! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Bangsamoro Republik
Bangsamoro Republik is a breakaway state from the Philippines and claims independence. Any confirmation on whether they control any actual territory so it could be added to this list? I cannot find anything. — SP E SH 531  Other  21:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone wrote that it is a de facto state. Any evidence to back this up?   [  Soffredo  ]   01:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, reuters confirmed today that they controlled several villages in the area they claim. [] Its likely they control other areas as well on Basilan and Mindano, but i haven't been able to find any source confirming beyond the ones near Zamborga.XavierGreen (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of them controlling anywhere until these recent clashes. Here's the list of villages that they claim to be holding now: . Since fighting is still ongoing and this only started a day or two ago, my strategy would be to wait for the direction of events to become clear before adding Bangsamoro to our lists of states. GeoEvan (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed this for now, using the 'hidden text' feature rather than removing the state. I think that at the moment the evidence is far from clear that Bangsamoro "controls a permanently populated territory". Control here means more than 'hold during a period of war': it means to administer, run and organise a territory. Potentially if the war becomes elongated and the Moro National Liberation Front takes permanent control of an area, or if a ceasefire results in them controlling a territory then we can add them, but at the moment it's by no means clear that this is anything other than territory being held in a war. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * PS I wonder that if there is a move towards reinstating this, whether there is benefit of adding it in third temporary category separate from the rest of the list eg 'a declared state which controls land in state of warfare' or some such? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unrecognized states by their very nature hold territory during conflict, for example the territory controlled by Somaliland is constantly in a state of flux because of warfare with Puntland and Khatumo State. Control is control, while it might be argued that Bangsamoro no longer controls any territory at all, it clearly met the criteria for the list when i added it. There is nothing concerning a "state of warfare" in the declartive theory of statehood. For example Azawad was added to the list, yet it was experencing "warfare" with Mali during the entirety of its existance.XavierGreen (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

We've had several of these apparently-transient "states" appearing and disappearing recently, and it concerns me that we end up with a list that fails the principle of least astonishment.

I note that we have precedent for leaving out supposed states during the transient phase of a conflict, in that the two competing governments of Libya were never listed, despite being (at least by appearance) a close match in theory to the two Chinas.

I find this case different to Somaliland in the same way as Libya was different to China. The Somaliland situation is well-established and well-documented. For all we know, the Bangsamoro situation could be over in a couple of weeks, and may never become well-established or well-documented.

List of states with limited recognition has a list of explicitly excluded categories - such as uncontacted peoples and micronations. Among them is:

"Those areas undergoing current civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession, regardless of temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria (by having control over permanently populated territory or by receiving recognition as state or legitimate government), where the conflict is still in its active phase, the situation is too rapidly changing and no relatively stable rump states have emerged yet."

I believe that we should probably have such a list and include that point. Kahastok talk 19:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I'd support this. I wasn't aware that Azwad had been on the page either, and I also wouldn't support it's inclusion. I'd agree that we shouldn't remove states that are at war - many limited recognition states are permanently at war with the state that they have broken from - we also need to distinguish between 'holding' and 'controlling' territory. While there's no mention of 'state of war' in declarative state theory - I never claimed that there was - the word 'control' does not simply mean 'to hold possession of'. It refers to the ability and practice of occupying, administering and running a territory. For example,this document produced by a Judge in Turkey, and this geopolitical source, use the more informative phrase 'effective control' to refer to the requirements of statehood. This was my objection to the inclusion of Bangsamoro, and is the broader strengthening of criteria that I feel is required here. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that Bangsamoro is also on the List of states with limited recognition despite that caveat. I have linked to this discussion from there. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The criteria you question mentioning civil war deals with issues arising soley from questions revolving around the succession of states, it has nothing to do with break away sepratist states. The Bangsamoro Republik does not claim to be the Philippines, it claims to be independent apart from the philippines unlik ethe situtation involving libya where the Transitional National Council claimed to be Libya as did the Qaddafi regime. There is no difference between holding and controlling territory, if your not holding a piece of territory your not controlling and if your not controlling a piece of territory your not holding it.XavierGreen (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the criteria detailing that, though. There is a significant difference between holding a territory in war, and controlling it as a state. There is no evidence that the Bangsamoro Republik has any administrative control over territory; that it controls a population; that it has any capacity to engage in relations with other states. Being war at does not prevent this. Being a newly declared republic fighting for its territory does. Maybe in 6 months it will be suitable to add it. At this time, there are no sources which tell us this. All we have a news stories saying that a rebel state controls 7 villages as part of a conflict. This does not equate to sovereign statehood. Declaritive theory requires: " 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states." (from Wikipedia). There is no evidence for this in Bangsamoro.
 * Finally, a note on your conduct Xavier - three editors over multiple pages have removed your inclusion of Bangsamoro. You have reverted each one. Thankfully none of us have had any interest in an edit war, but you might reflect that the actions of others indicates no consensus for inclusion. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that Azawad was added to the page, despite its ephemeral existence, because there was a significant amount of third party sources describing it as a breakaway state at that time. This is probably what made it easier for people to see its addition as non-forced. In the case of Bangsamoro, I've been unable to find sources that describe it as a state in those same terms. This may be what is raising eyebrows among other editors. Ladril (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm not familiar with the Azawad case, but the central point remains that if the bar for including a sovereign state is a declaration of independence and a claim that an area is 'controlled' by a news agency, then we are setting the bar way too low. In fact, the more I read the criteria here, the more I think that Bangsamoro doesn't match them. It is not "often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory." Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually think Xavier might be right in that, in the current circumstances, a case might be made for inclusion based on a strict reading of the criteria. Bottom line is, I don't think the discussion has to do that much with the criteria themselves, but on how conservative people are willing to be regarding the addition of new entries. Experience has shown that there are some users who are eager to add in everything that may be claimed to fit the criteria as soon as something develops that seems to bolster it, while the majority seem to prefer caution. Ladril (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The criteria is quite clear, the page list of states with limited recognition does state "civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession". It is clear that the reason a government would not be included during a civil war is because of a government succession dispute. In the case of a breakaway state there is no government succession dispute, the breakaway state is not claiming to be its mother country it is claiming to be a separate state. As for the criteria, reuters is considered a reliable source by wikipedia, and reuters stated that Bangsamoro controlled 7 villages. In regards to government, the Bangsamoro page has sources showing that the state has a president and a constitution (a government), as for a permanant population the villages under the control of Bangsamoro have been populated for decades if not centuries, and for capacity to enter relations with other states the MNLF is a member of the OIC which itself should show that it has the capacity to enter relations with other states, the president of the republik Misuari has lobbied for support from the OIC on behalf of the republik []. It clearly meets the criteria set forth on both this page and the limited recognition states page. The criteria under the declarative theory are not hard to meet, a well organized militant band of a hundred or so gunman can easily take over a populated place, declare independence, and meet the criteria for example Republic of Western Bosnia.XavierGreen (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 * It may be that Bangsamoro Republik meets the letter of the criteria, and it might be that the letter of the rule at List of sovereign states List of states with limited recognition does not bar Bangsamoro Republik.

 * My question is, should it meet the rule. In my view, in the absence of reliable sources referring to an entity as a state or breakaway state, during the initial or active phase of a rebellion in which there is little stability, we should not be listing an entity pending clarity of the position - regardless of the aim of the rebellion.  If this is not strictly within the stated exceptions, the stated exceptions should be changed.  If the claimed state disappears within weeks, it never goes on the list.  If the situation stabilises, it can go in at that time.

 * I believe that there is policy backing for this: WP:NOR would suggest that we should not be assessing the criteria for statehood ourselves, but that we should be waiting for reliable sources to do it. We shouldn't in principle, be listing any entity before any reliable source does. Kahastok talk 17:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Likewise, WP:NOR would suggest that we should not be adding arbitrary exceptions to the criteria, and assessing exceptions those ourselves, just so we can get the answer we want.
 * The underlying problem is that in spite what some have argued above, it's rarely "clear" whether a state meets the criteria because it is defined so vaguely. There are really only two solutions to this:
 * a) Only include states which are explicitly described as "sovereign states" by RS
 * b) Chose an unambiguous criteria which would not require OR to asses. I've argued in the past that we should restrict this list to states which are diplomatically recognized by at least one other state for just this reason.  This may not be a perfect solution, but it is objective and unambiguous and would eliminate the endless OR debates on the talk pages.  The shortcomings of any criteria we choose can be discussed in the article.  TDL (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The declarative theory of statehood is well sourced, quite clear, and objective. The constitutive theory is quite biased towards a UN point of view, many states are extremely hesitant to recognize a state that is not a member of the UN as the Kosovo issue has shown. I think the status quo is fine, you can have the similar problems with the constitutive theory as the declarative theory. For example what actually constitutes recognition? A diplomatic note? A treaty? A meeting between two representatives of the nations in question? An isolationist state can conceivably not want or seek recognition yet still clearly be a state and defend its independence fiercely. I think (as a political scientist) that the criteria are quite clear and rather that the problem is that a layman might not understand some of the terms used for example "government succession" but that same problem occurs with any specialized area of study. No matter what the criteria are, people will continuously be adding and removing states from the list because because their very nature states are born and die throughout time.XavierGreen (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the criteria is well sourced is irrelevant. The issue is whether the fact that a state meets the criteria is sourced.  Can you produce a source that says "Bangsamoro meets the declarative theory of statehood"?  If you can't, then making that argument is OR interpretation of sources and the criteria.
 * "The declarative theory of statehood is ... quite clear, and objective" - No it isn't.  There is lots of literature on the subject, which given that you claim to be a political scientist you should really be aware of.  See for example  which refutes many of your arguments:
 * "Control is control" - "institutionalized political, administrative and executive organizationl machinery must actually exercise state authority over the claimed territory and the people residing the that territory. In other words, there must be an entity or organ capable of establishing and maintaining a legal order through the territory of the prospective state."  Do you really think Bangsamoro ever satisfied this?  It seems the "laymen" are correct and the "political scientist" wrong on this issue.
 * For a comparable example on Finland when they broke away from Russia: "In the midst of revolution and anarchy, certain elements esential to the existence of a State, even some elements of fact, were lacking for a fairly considerable period."  Effective control is required both in cases of succession AND seccession.
 * "For example what actually constitutes recognition?" - The answer to this one is simple. A state has been recognized if RS say it has been recognized.  No need for complex assessments of situations where we don't have all the facts.  The whole point is that WE shouldn't be the ones who make these conclusions, it needs to be done by reliable sources.
 * As I said, the constitutive theory has its flaws, but at least it is unambiguous and objective. If the claim that it is biased towards a UN POV can be sourced, then this is something that would be important to mention in the article.  This isn't a debate over which criteria is better.  The point is that it is better to use an unambiguous and objective criteria and explain its flaws rather than an unambiguous criteria which a handful of editors perform OR with to come to conclusions unsupported by sources.
 * Show me a RS that Bangsamoro is a sovereign state and I'd support their inclusion. Otherwise, your personal analysis of the situation isn't admissible to the encyclopedia.  TDL (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * TDL, your differentiation of military control vs administrative control makes sense, however restricting the list to countries recognised by others would be a bad idea, as it would contradict the many sources that discuss those states without recognition. Azawad as noted above had a large number of sources discussing its existence as a state. Even without Azawad, restricting to recognition would leave out Somaliland, and possibly Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh, all three of which have in the past couple of decades become firmly established examples of breakaway states. I'd rather the occasional flash-in-the-pan rebel group added than removing 3 long-standing and well-sourced states. CMD (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I like at the moment that the page attempts to toe the line between constitutive and declarative state theory, and agree with CMD that I wouldn't want to change this. In this (and other instances) however, I think the key point that was made much more eloquently by TDL than I was able to is that control requires some level of administration, of civilian government which at least has aims to be permanent. Bangsamoro may have this is in a number of weeks; it may never have it. I also note the absence of any sources which state that Bangsamoro is a state with control over territory. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, but a state does not need to have a civilian government to be a state. The military and the state can be one in the same, for example Burma during the Junta. It is quite clear that the MNLF is one in the same as the Bangsamoro Republik. The MNLF is in essense the government of the state. I provided a reuters source before that stated that the MNLF had seized control over territory on behalf of the Bangsamoro Republik that had declared independence.

As for the constitutive theory being objective, i already gave the Kosovo example above as proof that it is not. States today rarely recognize another that is not a part of the UN, yet one can clearly have a state that isolationist and makes no attempts at gaining recognition or even doesn't care whether or not it is recognized (think of Japan in the shogunal era). You can further look into the Kosovo situation for example of when recognition is disputed, some governments such as São Tomé and Príncipe don't even know what constitutes a valid recognition by their own government.XavierGreen (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but by the logic of the addition of Bangsamoro Republik being a state is is unfathomable. Is the Irish Republic a state?

It was declared in 1916, comprises the entire island has had a form of military, and political governence of sorts (even paying pensions), it is in a soverniegnity dispute with the Irish and British governments and continues to claim juristriction. No its not. Because no one sees it as a legitimate form of state. And neither is the Bangsamoro Republik until we can class it through RS and international recognition. Murry1975 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Irish Republic no longer exists, it was subsumed into the Irish Free State in 1922.XavierGreen (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not according to those who opposed the treaty nor by those who continue armed struggle in its name, so it does exist by your previous logic. And by the logic you are stating now the Bangsamoro Republik cant exist because it hasnt seceeded from Malaysia or the Philippines. You cant have it both ways XavierGreen. Murry1975 (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Xavier, you either aren't reading or aren't understanding what I've said. Whether or not the constitutive theory is an good measure of what is and what is not a state is an entirely valid debate.  In fact I agree with you that the declarative theory is "better" in that it is not politicized.   However, that isn't what we are discussing.  What we are discussing is how do we tell if a state satisfies the criteria?  If I ask you whether a state meets the constitutive declarative criteria, you'd need to write an entire research paper just to answer that question because the criteria is so complicated, and depending on how they are interpreted can lead to different answeres.  That is the very definition of OR.  If I ask you whether a state satisfies the declarative constitutive theory of statehood, then the answer is simple, just ask other states if they recognize.
 * I don't disagree with the concerns above about only using declarative constitutive. I was just trying to point out that we have a choice between using a simple criteria that can be evaluated by us without performing OR (but which will likely get the "wrong" answer occasionally) or a complicated criteria which will need to be evaluated by RS.  If the choice is the latter, then the WP:BURDEN is on those who wish to add a state to provide sources that explicitly say "Bangsamoro is a sovereign state because it controls territory".  Collecting a bunch of sources and interpreting them to draw non-trivial conclusions is OR.  TDL (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

 * FWIW I would suggest that if we continue with the declarative theory (and I think you've got them the wrong way around in the above), we ought to require a reliable source confirming the point.

 * That said, it occurs to me that we already do. The declarative theory inclusion criterion is (emphasis mine):

 * consider themselves sovereign (through a declaration of independence or some other means) and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory

 * Seems to me that the principle that we require sources before making these claims could be made clearer, but it is already there. Kahastok talk 19:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad on the typo. I agree that in theory the criteria requires verification by reliable source, however in practice that never seems to be how things work on this article.
 * The other point is that the criteria only requires that sources confirm they "have control over a permanently populated territory". However, as Super Nintendo ChalmYou keep  ers argued above, a bunch of armed rebels may "control" territory, but not have "effective control" which is what is required for sovereignty.  We could try to clarify the criteria by changing it to "effective control", "administrative control" or "sovereign control" to emphasize this point, but perhaps the best idea is to just get rid of the description of the criteria all together, and say something like
 * ... consider themselves sovereign (through a declaration of independence or some other means) and are often regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood
 * That way it would be clear that there needs to be sources which says exactly that, rather than one source that supports one part of the criteria, another source that supports another, and then WP:SYNTHESISing it all together to conclude that they are sovereign. (The specific points of the criteria are already described elsewhere in the article.)  TDL (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support such a change. Kahastok talk 08:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

 * This page contains links to some sources on the case: . I think evidence is leaning more towards non-inclusion of Bangsamoro at this time. Ladril (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Control by a Military force is about as effective as one can get. Whats more effective than people using weapons to enforce their authority? As for sources the Reuters source i provided stated that the state had declared independence and controlled territory. Wikipedia does not require a source to be a published scholarly paper in a journal to be considered reliable, a news report from a wire like reuters certaintly is considered reliable. There was no synthesis.XavierGreen (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh...if you aren't going to read the discussion, or can't understand it, then there really is much point in continuing to debate this around and around in circles.
 * "Control by a Military force is about as effective as one can get." - Repeating this ad nauseam does not make it true. As I quoted above: "In other words, there must be an entity or organ capable of establishing and maintaining a legal order through the territory of the prospective state."  A handful of gunmen running around cannot maintain legal order.
 * Reuters is reliable, but Reuters doesn't say Bangsamoro is a sovereign state. Only you have said that.  You drew that conclusion from the source.  That is by definition OR.  Show me a source that says Bangsamoro is a sovereign state.  Otherwise you're making it up.
 * Since there seems to be a pretty clear consensus not to add Bangsamoro at this time, and no sources describing them as sovereign have been produced, I'm going to go ahead and revert your addition of Bangsamoro. Please don't restore it unless there is a consensus on the talk page.  TDL (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read the discussion, and i do understand it. A handful of gunman can maintain order. How do you think order is maintained throughout all of the states listed here, with gunman called police and military. The very essence of the state is its monopoly of force over the people. Max Weber argued that a polity is a state where its "administrative staff successfully uphold a claim on the 'monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force'" Gunmen, militia, military, police, ect are what provides a state with its very existence. The "entity or organ capable of establishing and maintaining a legal order through the territory of the prospective state" in the matter of Bangsamoro are the MNLA "gunmen" holding the villages. What legal order is in the villages is whatever they decide it to be, because they have (or had up until recently) effective control over them. And while the MNLA might not have "effective control" over any districts right now, they certaintly did when i added them and for several days afterword.XavierGreen (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Xavier, the problem, as illustrated in my link above, is that at this time it is not clear that the rebels who have taken control of the villages are the same faction that declared the Bangsamoro Republic some time ago. The rebels who declared the Republic have denied having endorsed the attacks and have distanced themselves from it. It is then not possible to establish that a state has been formed. Ladril (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is clear that it is the same faction and they no longer deny that they are in command of the faction engaged in the fighting, the main spokesman for the MNLF has been speaking on behalf of the MNLF unit involved in the fighting and has issued demands for the government to meet for the fighting to cease. [] [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierGreen (talk • contribs)
 * I really don't see how any reasonable person could describe the situation in the territory occupied by the MNLF gunmen as "legal order". Chaos, anarchy, guerrilla warfare or civil war is not "legal order".  Having the biggest guns doesn't mean you have effective control.  Did the MNLF ever "successfully uphold a claim on the 'monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force'"?  Did authorities from the Philippines ever try to exert physical force in the claimed territories only to be rebuffed?  If not, then there is no way to conclude that they had a monopoly on force.
 * Also, for further explanation of effective government see: "A state need not possess any particular type of government, but its government must provide some degree of internal stability and should enjoy “the habitual obedience of the bulk of the population (Lauterpacht 1947, 28).” An effective government provides its citizens and residents with remedies and carries out duties vis—a-vis other states (Lauterpacht 1947)." Did the "government of Bangsamoro provide "internal stability"? Do the "citizens" of Bangsamoro habitually obey the "government" of Bangsamoro? Which remedies does the government of Bangsamoro provide to its "citizens"? If the answer is "no" or "none" to any of these questions then there was no effective government and no effective control.  TDL (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have little more to add to the debates above. I agree that the sources should support the claim that a location is a state. I also agree that the control - in the context of statehood - requires some level of attempted or claimed government. I also think that it is clear that there is no consensus for including Bangsamoro and as such it should be removed, possibly with further editors from WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Countries asked for their perspectives. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that under the current criteria, Bangsamoro Republik probably technically qualifies for the list. "Control" means different things to different people - there's no one "correct" definition, and holding the powers and government of a state out of an area using military force is not an unusual meaning of the word "control" (not that the word "control" is also used by many reliable secondary sources in the case of the Zamboanga standoff).

HOWEVER, I agree that a change in the criteria may be in order, though not in regards to the issue of warfare. A "state" should probably have some kind administrative structure in place, which the rebels from the MNLF faction in Zamboanga don't seem to have. However, some other claimed states might have a robust administrative mechanism despite being in a state of war, and I think that should be enough for them to qualify.

Azawad might have been a difficult call. The MNLA did at least establish some governmental mechanisms, and their control was stable enough that they had time to do more than just shoot the army and hold hostages like the rebels in Zamboanga have done.

GeoEvan (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The argument is rather moot at this point, the MNLF no longer control any territory openly anywhere and the Bangsamoro Republic has been debellated. But i still think it met the criteria when it did exist defacto, at least for the first few days of the conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Declarative theory of statehood
I doubt if this is the dominant standard as stated in the article. The Montevideo Convention in which this standard was put forward has only sixteen signatories. All from the America's. In practice most countries use the constitutive theory of statehood in which they either recognise a country or withhold recognition. I suppose even the Montevideo signatories recognise countries and withhold recognition from other countries. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * While only a few states are party to the Convention, the general principals are considered to be part of customary international law (ie ). And while I agree that most states view recognition as a political decision, rather than one following from facts on the ground, the article should reflect how independent WP:RS (ie academic sources) define states, rather than WP:PRIMARY sources such as fellow states.  TDL (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Add the Syrian National Council to this list
I believe that the Syrian National Council (SNC) should be added to the list. If it was, here is what part of the list would look like:

Thoughts? Does the SNC fit the criteria?  [  Soffredo  ]    19:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I doubt it. So far as I can see there was a much clearer case for the Libyan rebels during the war there (at least in their case we could point to effective authority in Benghazi), and we never included them separately from Gaddhafi.

 * I suggest that if you want to add entities to the list, you need to be able to justify them by the criteria for inclusion. You do not appear to have attempted to do so here.  (And to pre-empt the obvious, allow me to point out that to pass the recognition point the Syrian National Council would have to be recognised as a sovereign state in their own right, as opposed to as government of an already-listed sovereign state.) Kahastok talk 22:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kahastok. Unless there are sources which support the claim that they have been recognized as a "sovereign state" they shouldn't be added.  I do think that it would be a good idea to add the details on the SNC to Syria's entry though.  TDL (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It's an alternative government for the same state. Shouldn't be included. Hellerick (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What Hellerick & Danlaycock wrote. They are not claiming to be a seperate state, they are claiming to be the legitimate government of an existing state that's already included. -- KTC (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

 * It should not be included. The Syrian National Council did not proclaim a new state. --maxval (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with maxval. This is not about a new sovereign state. Just about a group claiming to be the government of one. Even if that group is acknowledged by some governments as being the government of Syria, no new state has been declared and no new one has been recognized. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive 11


text:
Prauserella isguenensis

Prauserella isguenensis is a halophilic bacterium from the genus Prauserella which has been isolated from desert soil in Algeria.

title: Prauserella isguenensis


text:
User:Nangbanyini Tele

Nangbanyini Tele is online television account and page, which helps to project our community values and needs to the public. Nangbanyini Tele started operation August 2020, with minimum followers.

title: User:Nangbanyini Tele


text:
kombinoida

Etymology
(see 🇨🇬), ultimately from and adapted with the verbal suffix.

Verb

 * 1)  To combine.

title: kombinoida


text:
Botany Ink Drawing

Welcome to the subject of Botany Ink Drawing

This subject will offer to students different lessons. Students will study, how to draw real things from botanical morphology by a pencil and ink. Every week new lesson will be listed. It means that participants may join the course whenever they want. This subject is operated under the Department of Pomology, the Department of Botany, and the Visual Arts Department.

What you will need
Participants will need a soft pencil (B and lower), an ink in the pencil, white clean papers and scanner/or digital camera to upload their work.

Participants
Sign in, if you are interested:
 * User talk:Tumziix || 22 May 2023 || Competitor ||

Lessons

 * /Lesson 1 - pencils, ink and paper

title: Botany Ink Drawing


text:
Talk:El Dorado County Fair

Notability review
This article was made as part of a class project. It was denied once in the articles for creation process. There are a lot of weak sources for this article, or sources which only describe parts of the fair. I am going to review what I think are the most reliable sources which provide supporting evidence that the subject of this article meets general notability guidelines.

The star source is this thirty-minute video documentary about this fair.

Also interesting is this 1950s short profile of the event.
 * Placerville California El Dorado County Fair and John M Studebacker, a Universal Newsreel circa 1950 archived on Wikimedia Commons

Beyond these, there seems to be no text publication covering everything, but here are some representative sources which cover certain aspects of the fair.

Together, I think that these constitute a meeting of WP:GNG. I am moving this article to mainspace.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  21:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:El Dorado County Fair


text:
Summa de arithmetica

Summa de arithmetica, geometria, proportioni et proportionalita (Summary of arithmetic, geometry, proportions and proportionality) is a book on mathematics written by Luca Pacioli and first published in 1494. It contains a comprehensive summary of Renaissance mathematics, including practical arithmetic, basic algebra, basic geometry and accounting, written for use as a textbook and reference work.

Written in vernacular Italian, the Summa is the first printed work on algebra, and it contains the first published description of the double-entry bookkeeping system. It set a new standard for writing and argumentation about algebra, and its impact upon the subsequent development and standardization of professional accounting methods was so great that Pacioli is sometimes referred to as the "father of accounting".

Contents
The Summa de arithmetica as originally printed consists of ten chapters on a series of mathematical topics, collectively covering essentially all of Renaissance mathematics. The first seven chapters form a summary of arithmetic in 222 pages. The eighth chapter explains contemporary algebra in 78 pages. The ninth chapter discusses various topics relevant to business and trade, including barter, bills of exchange, weights and measures and bookkeeping, in 150 pages. The tenth and final chapter describes practical geometry (including basic trigonometry) in 151 pages.

The book's mathematical content draws heavily on the traditions of the abacus schools of contemporary northern Italy, where the children of merchants and the middle class studied arithmetic on the model established by Fibonacci's Liber Abaci. The emphasis of this tradition was on facility with computation, using the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, developed through exposure to numerous example problems and case studies drawn principally from business and trade. Pacioli's work likewise teaches through examples, but it also develops arguments for the validity of its solutions through reference to general principles, axioms and logical proof. In this way the Summa begins to reintegrate the logical methods of classical Greek geometry into the medieval discipline of algebra.

Bookkeeping and finance
Within the chapter on business, a section entitled Particularis de computis et scripturis (Details of calculation and recording) describes the accounting methods then in use among northern-Italian merchants, including double-entry bookkeeping, trial balances, balance sheets and various other tools still employed by professional accountants. The business chapter also introduces the rule of 72 for predicting an investment's future value, anticipating the development of the logarithm by more than century. These techniques did not originate with Pacioli, who merely recorded and explained the established best practices of contemporary businesspeople in his region.

Plagiarism controversy
Pacioli explicitly states in the Summa that he contributed no original mathematical content to the work, but he also does not specifically attribute any of the material to other sources. Subsequent scholarship has found that much of the work's coverage of geometry is taken almost exactly from Piero della Francesca’s Trattato d’abaco, one of the algebra sections is based on the Trattato di Fioretti of Antonio de Mazzinghi, and a portion of the business chapter is copied from a manuscript by Giorgio Chiarini. This sort of appropriation has led some historians (notably including sixteenth-century biographer Giorgio Vasari) to accuse Pacioli of plagiarism in the Summa (and other works). Many of the problems and techniques included in the book are quite directly taken from these earlier works, but the Summa generally adds original logical arguments to justify the validity of the methods.

History
Summa de arithmetica was composed over a period of decades through Pacioli's work as a professor of mathematics, and was probably intended as a textbook and reference work for students of mathematics and business, especially among the mercantile middle class of northern Italy. It was written in vernacular Italian (rather than Latin), reflecting its target audience and its purpose as a teaching text. The work was dedicated to Guidobaldo da Montefeltro, Duke of Urbino, a patron of the arts whom Pacioli had met in Rome some years earlier.

It was originally published in Venice in 1494 by Paganino Paganini, with an identical second edition printed in 1523 in Toscolano. About a thousand copies were originally printed, of which roughly 120 are still extant. In June 2019 an intact first edition sold at auction for US$1215000.

Impact and legacy
While the Summa contained little or no original mathematical work by Pacioli, it was the most comprehensive mathematical text ever published at the time. Its thoroughness and clarity (and the lack of any other similar work available in print) generated strong and steady sales to the European merchants who were the text's intended audience. The reputation the Summa earned Pacioli as a mathematician and intellectual inspired Ludovico Sforza, Duke of Milan, to invite him to serve as a mathematical lecturer in the ducal court, where Pacioli befriended and collaborated with Leonardo da Vinci.

The Summa represents the first published description of many accounting techniques, including double-entry bookkeeping. Some of the same methods were described in other manuscripts predating the Summa (such as the 1458 Della mercatura e del mercante perfetto by Benedetto Cotrugli), but none was published before Pacioli's work, and none achieved the same wide influence. The work's role in standardizing and disseminating professional bookkeeping methods has earned Pacioli a reputation as the "father of accounting".

The book also marks the beginning of a movement in sixteenth-century algebra toward the use of logical argumentation and theorems in the study of algebra, following the model of classical Greek geometry established by Euclid. It is thought to be the first printed work on algebra, and it includes the first printed example of a set of plus and minus signs that were to become standard in Italian Renaissance mathematics: 'p' with a tilde above (p̄) for "plus" and 'm' with a tilde (m̄) for minus. Pacioli's (incorrect) assertion in the Summa that there was no general solution to cubic equations helped to popularize the problem among contemporary mathematicians, contributing to its subsequent solution by Niccolò Tartaglia.

Commemoration
In 1994 Italy issued a 750-lira postage stamp honoring the 500th anniversary of the Summa's publication, depicting Pacioli surrounded by mathematical and geometric implements. The image on the stamp was inspired by the Portrait of Luca Pacioli and contains many of the same elements.

title: Summa de arithmetica


text:
Talk:Lois Stratton

Death
Lois Stratton passed away on September 11, 2020. Published sources for her death (and corrections to her personal history) should be available by September 15, 2020. --Westalice (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)westalice

Link with more info
I'm working on another project and don't have time to edit this article right now, but thought someone else might eventually find it helpful that there is additional detail on the Washington legislature's bio page of her that could be added to the article. W.stanovsky (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lois Stratton


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/fontans.net.ua

Links

 * fontans.net.ua resolves to [//<IP_ADDRESS> <IP_ADDRESS>]
 * Link is not on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the domainredlist.
 * Link is not on the Monitorlist.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.

Additions

 * Displayed all 1 additions.


text:
a lacte cunisque

Etymology
From   +. Hence literally “from milk and cradle”.

Idiom

 * 1)  From the cradle, from infancy.

title: a lacte cunisque


text:
Miss California (disambiguation)

The Miss California competition selects the representative for the state of California in the Miss America competition.

Miss California may also refer to:

 * Miss California USA, for the Miss USA pageant
 * Miss California Teen USA, for the Miss Teen USA pageant
 * Miss California World, for the Miss World America pageant
 * Miss California's Outstanding Teen, for in the Miss America's Teen pageant
 * "Miss California" (song), 2001 song by Dante Thomas featuring Pras
 * Miss California (film), a 2006 Indian film
 * "Mrs. California", an episode of the American TV series The Office

title: Miss California (disambiguation)


text:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dilshad002/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

New account, created after Dilshad002 was blocked to pursue the discussion about Dilshad and posted to User talk:JalenFolf exactly what Dilshad posted on my talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
 * I am adding MikkiModified to this investigation as the user also tried to defend the case about Dilshad on my own Talk page. Possible meatpuppet. Jalen D. Folf   (talk)  19:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * There's also a WP:BRO admission at Special:Diff/916874130. . Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

Continuing efforts to overwrite the Dilshad set index with promotional material. Similar agenda as previous socks. Jalen Folf  (talk)  20:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


text:
Patania chlorophanta

Patania chlorophanta is a species of moth in the family Crambidae. It was described by Arthur Gardiner Butler in 1878. It is found on Honshu, Japan.

title: Patania chlorophanta


text:
Talk:Peter Panda Dance

Why does this get its own article?!

Good point! I redirected it to the main article - The Pacifier. This dance can be discussed there.--Commander Keane 05:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Peter Panda Dance


text:
Samson Ramadhani

Samson Ramadhani Nyonyi (born 25 December 1982 in Singida) is a Tanzanian marathon runner. He was the gold medalist at the 2006 Commonwealth Games that took place in Melbourne, Australia with the result at 2:11:29.

In 2003 he participated three marathons: He won the Beppu Oita Marathon, was fifth at the London Marathon (time 2:08:01, still his personal best) and was 15th at the World Championships in Paris.

He finished 40th at the 2004 Olympic Games, and 5th at the 2005 World Championships.

In 2007 he won the Lake Biwa Marathon and competed at the 2007 World Championships in Osaka finishing 25th. At the 2008 Olympic marathon he finished 55th, and 66th at the 2012 Men's marathon.

title: Samson Ramadhani