Misplaced Pages

Talk:Dependent territory: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:53, 9 April 2024 editKoavf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,174,994 edits Possible vandalism: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:17, 20 December 2024 edit undo2001:8003:9100:2c01:a453:fa47:63a7:651b (talk) Entities with no unique autonomy: ReplyTag: Reply 
(65 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject International relations|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Countries|importance=}} {{WikiProject Countries}}
}} }}


Line 14: Line 14:
}} }}
{{archive box|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|auto=long|search=yes|age=3|units=months}} {{archive box|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|auto=long|search=yes|age=3|units=months}}

==UN list of dependent territories==
], ], ], ] My addition of the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories was and object of a dispute. We should discuss whether to add it or remove it or something else.

Although there is a ] for it, the practice is prevalent to mirror some content of subtopics in the relevant pages. Therefore, I don't think my succinct table is redundant. In fact, I think omitting said information from this page is less than ideal, because it is essential information to the subject of the page. There may be text indicating that a dependent territory is on the UN list but it would be more practical and better format to have a separate table of said list as well. <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">]</span> ] 21:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:Mirroring the table is redundant. We don't eg. have the US State Department list of dependent territories. ] (]) 00:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

::I'm puzzled by the section added above, aimed as it is toward a bunch of seasoned editors, it seems to me to violate ] and aimed to browbeat your fellow editors. I'm sure that I may have misconstrued your motives but felt it important to bring to your attention, ie even if that were not your intention it rather frames your approach to comments. To add to the discussion, I am mildly in favour of the addition of that table but I also recognise the strong arguments against it; namely that is to some extent redundant and incomplete. As such I'm not inclined to press for inclusion, rather suggesting that a more rounded and complete approach is required. As currently formulated I'm not in favour of inclusion but I would be prepared to consider a constructive proposal that addresses the concerns presented. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 17:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Argumentum ad verecundiam. I have been in Misplaced Pages long enough to know that senior editors are not perfect (btw, I did not use a template). But tbh before posting the policies I was going to report the page to the edit warring noticeboard to be analyzed by editors more experienced about the issue. I decided against and instead just post the aforementioned thread that generated irk. Regards, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">]</span> ] 04:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

::@] maybe we should, as the US is a world power. I would understand if we don't have 10 lists of 10 different countries or organizations in this page. But it may be a good idea to include a select few of the most notable ones and make mention of others. After all, how was the current list compiled? Does it pick and choose items to include, does it have consistency? <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">]</span> ] 20:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

:::It was compiled by consensus, and does have consistency. There are always questions around the system (as there are with all similar topics), however these are more noticeable here as a reflection of the topic itself, which has always somewhat of a term of convenience. ] (]) 01:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

:'''Comment''' I think we should list the ] at the top, since this is the official list of dependent territories recognized by the ] ]. Then we can add other remaining inhabited dependent territories by country. ] (]) 04:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
::Sounds like a good idea. Regards, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">]</span> ] 05:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Uninhabited territories should be removed though. They aren't country-like dependencies, they don't even have a local government and they have no people to be governed either. ] (]) 07:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

== The West Bank and Gaza? ==

Should this article list the ] and ] as Dependent Territories? Per the ] article: "The territories of Gaza and the ] are separated from each other by Israeli territory. Both fell under the jurisdiction of the ], but the Strip is governed by ], a militant, fundamentalist Islamic organization, which came to power in the ]." ] (]) 19:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

:A dependent territory must be legally external to the metropolitan state, which in turn must exercise control over it. How does this apply? ] (]) 19:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:The ] is directly controlled by the ], the ] is controlled by a rebel militant group (]). Both territories are integral parts of the ], they are not dependent territories. ] (]) 04:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


== Uninhabited islands and Antarctic claims == == Uninhabited islands and Antarctic claims ==
Line 82: Line 56:
:Where did you get these definitions? Did you just make them up? ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 04:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC) :Where did you get these definitions? Did you just make them up? ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 04:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


::It has been defined by the ]. All dependent territories should function like countries. A dependent territory should have a permanent population. Its local people should have the option to break away from their parent state and create their own independent sovereign state via ].
== "]" listed at ] ==
::Uninhabited islands cannot become independent sovereign states. Hence, they are not dependent territories.
]
::Source:
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 31#Dependencies and other territories}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 21:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
::https://en.wikisource.org/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_1514 ] (]) 03:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Where exactly in that source does it say that? ] (]) 03:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Basically, the whole source talks about that. The United Nations use the term "non-self-governing territories" instead of dependent territories, dependent areas, or dependencies to describe these country-like political entities, but they are the same thing.
::::Obviously, uninhabited islands are not dependencies since they don't function like countries, they are just remote external territories located far away from the mainland. They don't "depend" on their mainland administration, they are "administered" by their mainland administration. ] (]) 23:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::They are not the same thing: you are mistaken. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 00:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::What are the differences? Could you elaborate on details? ] (]) 00:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::] are not ]. They are just different things and you are conflating them. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 02:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Well, all dependent territories have been classified as colonies by the United Nations. There are only two ways to avoid being classified as colonies:
::::::::1. Independence (i.e. becoming a ]).
::::::::2. Fully incorporated with your parent state (i.e. becoming a normal ]). ] (]) 02:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Is this more ] on your part? ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 02:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Please quote the part that says "all dependent territories should function like countries" or anything even like that and the part about uninhabited islands. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 04:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
::::@], What you are saying is just your interpretation of what the UN writes or thinks. Even if it is obvious, it is still your opinion (primary source) and is therefore not a secondary source, and therefore should not be used a such. I also have doubts about your interpretation anyway. ] (]) 00:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::And even if ''that'' were true, this is not UN-pedia. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 02:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

== The Azores, the Canary Islands, and Madeira ==
I just want to point out that the ], the ], and ] have been classified as ] by Collins World Atlas. ] (]) 05:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

:It's not an authority. Legally, under both domestic and international law, the territories have been incorporated into Spain and Portugal respectively. ] (]) 04:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
::I can't see any differences between them and the likes of ], the ], and ]. ] (]) 09:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, I can see the difference clearly. The Canary Islands are an autonomous region of Spain, and the Asores and Madeiras are autonomous regions of Portugal, while Christmas, Cocos and Norfolk are external dependent territories of Australia. ] (]) 03:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I can't see any differences between them and Tasmania. ] (]) 04:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I think the problem is more the inclusion of ], the ], and ]. They don't meet any of the listed criteria for entities similar to dependent territories and are included on the ad hoc basis the that Australia acquired them after its establishment - a criterion which, if applied neutrally and consistently, would make for a very long article indeed, and which must be discarded immediately as the actual basis. The real reason they are included is of course that they are commonly included in similar lists. ] (]) 11:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::::They're included here because "debate remains as to whether the external territories are integral parts of Australia", which is likely related to why they're on similar lists. If the debate was settled they'd be in the first list. The list excludes entities that appear on similar lists, although they are mentioned in prose (eg. French Guiana, Palmyra Atoll, Jan Mayen). ] (]) 11:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::::There is no evidence they have been incorporated into Australia. In recent years, Australia has placed refugees on these islands, under the premise that because they were not part of Australia, the ] did not apply.
::::Incorporation into a state means that its laws apply in full, which apparently is not the case here, at least in the opinion of the Australian government. ] (]) 13:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::'''COMMENT''' No evidence? I will show you the evidence. Below is a link from the Australian Government explaining the legal status of its external territories:
:::::https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=ncet/communication/report/chapter2.pdf
:::::According to the source, Australia has full sovereign powers over all of the External Territories and those territories are all Australian territory in the same sense as any part of the Australian mainland. However, Norfolk Island is a self-governing territory like the mainland territories of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, while all of the other External Territories are non self-governing.
:::::Norfolk, Christmas, Cocos, Ashmore, Cartier and the Coral Sea Islands are all administered by the Department of Transport and Regional Services. The Australian Antarctic Territory and Heard and McDonald Islands are administered by the Department of the Environment and Heritage.
:::::In other words, all seven external territories are considered integral parts of Australia. They are administered by either of the two above-mentioned deparments under the Australian federal government. ] (]) 05:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::At one time, the UK had full sovereign powers over all of Australia and it was British property in the same sense as any part of the UK. That does not mean that Australia was ever part of the UK.
::::::Can you name any dependent territories where another state does not have full sovereign powers over it? That is after all the definition of a dependency.
::::::Note the source says that these territories are legally referred to as "External Territories", i.e., not part of Australia. And the discussion is about what Australian laws apply to these territories, which would not be an issue say with the Northern Territory or Tasmania. ] (]) 07:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::But the source doesn't say the "External Territories" are not part of Australia either. It says: "the Norfolk Island is a self-governing territory like the mainland territories of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, while all of the other External Territories are non self-governing."
:::::::I think that statement clearly states that Norfolk Island has the same political status as the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory while the other External Territories are administered directly by the Australian Federal Government. Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands each has a local government (] and ]), but they have no special rights compared to other shires on ] while the other External Territories are ]s. All of them are considered integral parts of Australia. ] (]) 12:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::What is the difference between integral and non-integral territories of Australia? What would be different if these territories were non-integral? ] (]) 17:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Non-integral territories are territories administered separately and independently from their national government. Some examples include ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. Another way to distinguish them is whether these territories have been viewed as separate entities from their parent state by the ]. Some key indicators include separate membership within an international ] or having its own national sports teams in international competitions. For example, Greenland is a member of the ], New Caledonia is a member of the ], Hong Kong has its own ], and Puerto Rico has its own ]. On the other hand, Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and Norfolk Island have none of these privileges. ] (]) 04:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I have not seen that definition before and ask for a source. Scotland has its own teams, Quebec has limited international personality, while Puerto Rico is administered de facto in the same way as any U.S. state.
::::::::::Dependency is just the modern politically correct term applied to territories that were once considered colonies. There is a huge range of degrees of self-government, but sovereignty always remains with the administering state. For example, the UK imposed direct rule on the Turks and Caicos in 2009. ] (]) 08:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Norfolk Island participates at the Commonwealth Games and Pacific Games separately from Australia. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>] <span style="background-color:mistyrose;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">]</span></span> 14:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

== Formal request ==
As per the discussions above, I would like to request the following 31 entities to be removed from our article as they do not meet the definition of a ]:

;Associated states

# ]
# ]

;Integral part of a sovereign state

# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]

;Military bases

# ]
# ] (])
# ]

;Uninhabited islands

# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]

;Territorial claims

# ]
# ]
# ]

;Antarctic claims

# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]

] (]) 05:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)


:While they may not meet your definition of dependencies, they meet definitions in reliable sources and more importantly are described as dependencies in reliable sources. ] (]) 08:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
== Possible vandalism ==
Please roll back the latest edits in the article to approximately the state of January 7, 2024. User ''']''' changed the header of the tables of the dependent territories of New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom. Firstly, the matter has not been completed, and secondly, it has only gotten worse, since it is now unclear which territories are uninhabited and which are claimed.


== Entities with no unique autonomy ==
Also, Palmyra Atoll was added to the table of dependent territories of the United States, although the table states before the table that this territory is excluded from the list because “it is classified as an incorporated territory under US law”. The result is a contradiction between the text, table and image at the very beginning of the article.


I guess these entities should be included in this list, and I will explain why.
I apologize in advance for possible mistakes—I live in Russia and do not fully speak English.
<p>
<strong>1. ISO 3166-2 code</strong>
</p>
According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), codes assigned to countries play a fundamental role in different contexts, both in international trade and global communication. ISO creates international standards to ensure standardization. Having unique and consistent codes for countries facilitates communication between companies, governments and organizations around the world, eliminating ambiguity and errors that could occur with the use of different country names or abbreviations. For example, for databases and IT systems, representing countries by alphanumeric codes is much more efficient and less error-prone than by full names. Additionally, country codes help organize and categorize data in a more practical and structured way.
<p>
<strong>2. Country calling code</strong>
</p>
Each country or territory has a unique numeric code (for example, metropolitan France is +33, and French Guiana, which is a French overseas department is +594). This code is necessary for international calls to be correctly routed and directed to the destination country, because without calling codes, it would be impossible to distinguish between telephone numbers from different countries. A number may be the same in several countries (for example, 1234567890 may be a valid number in France and elsewhere), but the international dialing code ensures that the call goes to the correct country.
<p>
<strong>3. Country code top-level domain</strong>
</p>
Country code top-level domains (TLDs), such as ".no" for Norway or ".sj" for Svalbard and Jan Mayen, are important for several reasons, especially when it comes to distinguishing between countries and territories and their respective identities on the internet. For example, the country code TLD helps identify the geographic origin of a website or online resource. For example, a domain like "example.co.nl" indicates that the site is associated with the Netherlands, while "example.bq" suggests a connection with BES islands. This helps users and search engines understand the location of a service or business. In addition, many users prefer to interact with local content. For example, French Guiana may trust more a website with a ".gf" domain because he expects the content to be in French and relevant to French Guiana. Country code TLDs help you create an immediate connection with your local audience.
<p>
Resuming, although these entities have no unique autonomy, they signed these treaties, which are considered international, then at the same time, it is possible to consider that these entities are considered dependent territories even without autonomy. ] (]) 16:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


:Can you provide a list of these entities? ] (]) 04:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Откатите, пожалуйста, последние правки в статье примерно до состояния на 7 января 2024 года. Пользователь ''']''' изменил шапку таблиц зависимых территорий Новой Зеландии, Норвегии и Соединённого Королевства. Во-первых, дело не доведено до конца, а во-вторых, стало только хуже, поскольку теперь непонятно, какие территории необитаемы, а какие — заявлены.


== Entities with non-recognized unique autonomy ==
Также в таблицу зависимых территорий Соединённых Штатов был добавлен атолл Пальмира, хотя перед таблицей сказано, что данная территория исключена из списка, так как «в законодательстве США она классифицируется как инкорпорированная территория». В итоге получается противоречие между текстом, таблицей и изображением в самом начале статьи.


I propose the inclusion of these entities, such as ] of Iraq; ] of Myanmar; ] of Palestine; ] and ] of Somalia; ] of Syria; and ] of Tanzania. The reason for including these entities is because they in fact have a greater degree of autonomy, with its self-governments, juridictions and regulations although this is not as recognized internationally. For example, Wa State has its own political system, administrative divisions, army and constitution (Wa State Basic Law). Then, it's possible that these entities should be considered as dependent territories. ] (]) 19:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Заранее извиняюсь за возможные ошибки — я живу в России и не в полной мере владею английским языком. ] (]) 13:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


:Many nations have sub-national governments and Canadian provinces even have the right to conduct their own foreign affairs in areas of provincial jurisdiction. ] (]) 18:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:* '''Support''' The old version is indeed a better one. The edits made by ''']''' violate both ] and ]. These edits should be reverted. ] (]) 15:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
::You're not understanding, do you remember about my mention of Wa State, which has its own political system, administrative divisions, army and constitution? However, that's not apply to Canadian provinces and yet they are fully integrated to Canada itself, even with some degree of autonomy. ] (]) 16:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:*:What? How are they NPOV or POINT-y? ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 17:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
:*::Your tables are ugly, man. The main purpose of this article is creating a list of dependent territories, so these territories should be the '''first (main) item''' in the table, not their political status. The original tables are easier for the readers to acquire information, not the weird ones created by you. ] (]) 01:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
:*:::That in no way answers my questions at all. Have you read ]? ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 01:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
:These are required by ]. Do not remove them, just improve them. See also ]. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 17:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
::Koavf, your edits seem to have created new "Status" titles for NZ and Norway. Where were they from and why were the old ones changed? As for Palmyra that was not in Koavf's edits, and either way I have reverted. ] (]) 04:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:::"Where were they from" ??? and "why were the old ones changed?" ]. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 04:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Could you explain how MOS:TABLECAPTION requires the changing of "Dependent territory" to "Territory" in some cases and "Dependency" in other cases? ] (]) 04:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::It does not. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 05:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::Okay, so is there another reason for why you changed the status titles if not MOS:TABLECAPTION as you indicated in your previous answer? ] (]) 05:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::What are "status titles"? I still have no clue what you're talking about. There were no captions, there need to be captions, therefore, I added captions. I don't see what the problem is. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 07:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I provided specific examples two messages above. Given there was apparently no reason, I have restored the long-standing version. I do agree with OP that it is unusual for the tables to be inconsistent, so would suggest a future change be made to all tables instead of just 3. ] (]) 14:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::So to be clear, you know that table captions are required per ] and they are used by the blind, but you removed them and you also know that ] says to not insert columns that span the table in the middle like this because they are difficult for blind users to navigate and you inserted them anyway? ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 15:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::What I did was ask very openly why the content was changed. I got one answer, then a note that this was not actually the answer, then a dismissal. Those who are blind benefit as do all our readers from accurate and explainable content choices. ] (]) 02:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I in no way dismissed you: I asked you what you meant. You on the other hand dismissed me just now. The solution to what you perceive to be deficient table captions is not remove them, but improve them. Have you read ]? ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 05:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I have openly asked you from the beginning to explain the edits, which were clearly not just adding captions. I have provided specific quotes. I'm in some cases getting 3 word replies to my questions. And yes I have read the MOS. ] (]) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I have answered all your questions, but I don't know what a "status title" is, hence I asked. I explained that I did two things: I added table captions ''and'' removed column headers and gave you citations as to why: ] and ]. Since you have evidently read the entire MOS, I am still waiting on an answer to my ] above. You know that captions are obligatory and you removed them. You know that column headers are disallowed and you added them (back). Why? ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 09:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Prior to your question I had already the changes, which were not one of those two things you list now. I ma not sure why this is still being missed, despite my repeated mention of them. I already answered your second question too, , also apparently missed. ] (]) 09:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::This is neither a yes nor a no: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Dependent_territory&diff=prev&oldid=1217989001. Please do not play games while others are trying to be serious. You can easily answer "Yes, I did that, knowing better because I have read the MOS", but you are just being unserious. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 09:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:17, 20 December 2024

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Uninhabited islands and Antarctic claims

Uninhabited islands are not dependent territories. To be a dependent territory, the entity needs to function like a country, i.e. it should have three key elements: a defined territory, a permanent population, and a functioning local government. Uninhabited islands only have a defined territory and nothing else, they are not dependent territories. It doesn't matter what their administering states call them, they are merely "overseas territories" directly administered by their central governments.

All Antarctic claims are also uninhabited and therefore they are not dependent territories too.

I propose the removal of the following 24 territories and territorial claims from the list of dependent territories:

Uninhabited islands
  1. Akrotiri and Dhekelia (military bases)
  2. Ashmore and Cartier Islands
  3. Bajo Nuevo Bank
  4. Baker Island
  5. Bouvet Island
  6. British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)
  7. Clipperton Island
  8. Coral Sea Islands
  9. Heard Island and McDonald Islands
  10. Howland Island
  11. Jarvis Island
  12. Johnston Atoll
  13. Kingman Reef
  14. Midway Atoll
  15. Navassa Island
  16. Serranilla Bank
  17. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
  18. Wake Island
Antarctic claims
  1. Australian Antarctic Territory
  2. British Antarctic Territory
  3. French Southern and Antarctic Lands
  4. Peter I Island
  5. Queen Maud Land
  6. Ross Dependency

2001:8003:9100:2C01:ACFE:7B23:904F:A674 (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Where did you get these definitions? Did you just make them up? ―Justin (koavf)TCM04:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
It has been defined by the United Nations. All dependent territories should function like countries. A dependent territory should have a permanent population. Its local people should have the option to break away from their parent state and create their own independent sovereign state via self-determination.
Uninhabited islands cannot become independent sovereign states. Hence, they are not dependent territories.
Source:
https://en.wikisource.org/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_1514 120.16.127.229 (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Where exactly in that source does it say that? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Basically, the whole source talks about that. The United Nations use the term "non-self-governing territories" instead of dependent territories, dependent areas, or dependencies to describe these country-like political entities, but they are the same thing.
Obviously, uninhabited islands are not dependencies since they don't function like countries, they are just remote external territories located far away from the mainland. They don't "depend" on their mainland administration, they are "administered" by their mainland administration. 120.16.127.229 (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
They are not the same thing: you are mistaken. ―Justin (koavf)TCM00:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
What are the differences? Could you elaborate on details? 120.16.127.229 (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Colonies are not dependent territories. They are just different things and you are conflating them. ―Justin (koavf)TCM02:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, all dependent territories have been classified as colonies by the United Nations. There are only two ways to avoid being classified as colonies:
1. Independence (i.e. becoming a sovereign State).
2. Fully incorporated with your parent state (i.e. becoming a normal administrative division). 120.16.48.249 (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Is this more made-up stuff on your part? ―Justin (koavf)TCM02:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Please quote the part that says "all dependent territories should function like countries" or anything even like that and the part about uninhabited islands. ―Justin (koavf)TCM04:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
@user:120.16.127.229, What you are saying is just your interpretation of what the UN writes or thinks. Even if it is obvious, it is still your opinion (primary source) and is therefore not a secondary source, and therefore should not be used a such. I also have doubts about your interpretation anyway. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
And even if that were true, this is not UN-pedia. ―Justin (koavf)TCM02:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The Azores, the Canary Islands, and Madeira

I just want to point out that the Azores, the Canary Islands, and Madeira have been classified as dependent territories by Collins World Atlas. 203.174.173.6 (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not an authority. Legally, under both domestic and international law, the territories have been incorporated into Spain and Portugal respectively. TFD (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I can't see any differences between them and the likes of Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and Norfolk island. 120.16.66.177 (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, I can see the difference clearly. The Canary Islands are an autonomous region of Spain, and the Asores and Madeiras are autonomous regions of Portugal, while Christmas, Cocos and Norfolk are external dependent territories of Australia. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I can't see any differences between them and Tasmania. TFD (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the problem is more the inclusion of Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and Norfolk island. They don't meet any of the listed criteria for entities similar to dependent territories and are included on the ad hoc basis the that Australia acquired them after its establishment - a criterion which, if applied neutrally and consistently, would make for a very long article indeed, and which must be discarded immediately as the actual basis. The real reason they are included is of course that they are commonly included in similar lists. Kominscarm (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
They're included here because "debate remains as to whether the external territories are integral parts of Australia", which is likely related to why they're on similar lists. If the debate was settled they'd be in the first list. The list excludes entities that appear on similar lists, although they are mentioned in prose (eg. French Guiana, Palmyra Atoll, Jan Mayen). CMD (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
There is no evidence they have been incorporated into Australia. In recent years, Australia has placed refugees on these islands, under the premise that because they were not part of Australia, the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees did not apply.
Incorporation into a state means that its laws apply in full, which apparently is not the case here, at least in the opinion of the Australian government. TFD (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
COMMENT No evidence? I will show you the evidence. Below is a link from the Australian Government explaining the legal status of its external territories:
https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=ncet/communication/report/chapter2.pdf
According to the source, Australia has full sovereign powers over all of the External Territories and those territories are all Australian territory in the same sense as any part of the Australian mainland. However, Norfolk Island is a self-governing territory like the mainland territories of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, while all of the other External Territories are non self-governing.
Norfolk, Christmas, Cocos, Ashmore, Cartier and the Coral Sea Islands are all administered by the Department of Transport and Regional Services. The Australian Antarctic Territory and Heard and McDonald Islands are administered by the Department of the Environment and Heritage.
In other words, all seven external territories are considered integral parts of Australia. They are administered by either of the two above-mentioned deparments under the Australian federal government. 58.152.63.206 (talk) 05:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
At one time, the UK had full sovereign powers over all of Australia and it was British property in the same sense as any part of the UK. That does not mean that Australia was ever part of the UK.
Can you name any dependent territories where another state does not have full sovereign powers over it? That is after all the definition of a dependency.
Note the source says that these territories are legally referred to as "External Territories", i.e., not part of Australia. And the discussion is about what Australian laws apply to these territories, which would not be an issue say with the Northern Territory or Tasmania. TFD (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
But the source doesn't say the "External Territories" are not part of Australia either. It says: "the Norfolk Island is a self-governing territory like the mainland territories of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, while all of the other External Territories are non self-governing."
I think that statement clearly states that Norfolk Island has the same political status as the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory while the other External Territories are administered directly by the Australian Federal Government. Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands each has a local government (Shire of Christmas Island and Shire of Cocos (Keeling) Islands), but they have no special rights compared to other shires on mainland Australia while the other External Territories are uninhabited islands. All of them are considered integral parts of Australia. 1.159.150.219 (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
What is the difference between integral and non-integral territories of Australia? What would be different if these territories were non-integral? TFD (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Non-integral territories are territories administered separately and independently from their national government. Some examples include Aruba, Bermuda, Greenland, Hong Kong, New Caledonia, Puerto Rico, and Tokelau. Another way to distinguish them is whether these territories have been viewed as separate entities from their parent state by the international community. Some key indicators include separate membership within an international political organisation or having its own national sports teams in international competitions. For example, Greenland is a member of the Nordic Council, New Caledonia is a member of the Pacific Islands Forum, Hong Kong has its own national football team, and Puerto Rico has its own national basketball team. On the other hand, Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and Norfolk Island have none of these privileges. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:BD:FEFB:7CF:88AE (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I have not seen that definition before and ask for a source. Scotland has its own teams, Quebec has limited international personality, while Puerto Rico is administered de facto in the same way as any U.S. state.
Dependency is just the modern politically correct term applied to territories that were once considered colonies. There is a huge range of degrees of self-government, but sovereignty always remains with the administering state. For example, the UK imposed direct rule on the Turks and Caicos in 2009. TFD (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Norfolk Island participates at the Commonwealth Games and Pacific Games separately from Australia. I T B F 📢 14:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Formal request

As per the discussions above, I would like to request the following 31 entities to be removed from our article as they do not meet the definition of a dependent territory:

Associated states
  1. Cook Islands
  2. Niue
Integral part of a sovereign state
  1. Åland
  2. Christmas Island
  3. Cocos (Keeling) Islands
  4. Norfolk Island
  5. Svalbard
Military bases
  1. Akrotiri and Dhekelia
  2. British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)
  3. Wake Island
Uninhabited islands
  1. Ashmore and Cartier Islands
  2. Baker Island
  3. Bouvet Island
  4. Clipperton Island
  5. Coral Sea Islands
  6. Heard Island and McDonald Islands
  7. Howland Island
  8. Jarvis Island
  9. Johnston Atoll
  10. Kingman Reef
  11. Midway Atoll
  12. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Territorial claims
  1. Bajo Nuevo Bank
  2. Navassa Island
  3. Serranilla Bank
Antarctic claims
  1. Australian Antarctic Territory
  2. British Antarctic Territory
  3. French Southern and Antarctic Lands
  4. Peter I Island
  5. Queen Maud Land
  6. Ross Dependency

2001:8003:9100:2C01:BD:FEFB:7CF:88AE (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

While they may not meet your definition of dependencies, they meet definitions in reliable sources and more importantly are described as dependencies in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Entities with no unique autonomy

I guess these entities should be included in this list, and I will explain why.

1. ISO 3166-2 code

According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), codes assigned to countries play a fundamental role in different contexts, both in international trade and global communication. ISO creates international standards to ensure standardization. Having unique and consistent codes for countries facilitates communication between companies, governments and organizations around the world, eliminating ambiguity and errors that could occur with the use of different country names or abbreviations. For example, for databases and IT systems, representing countries by alphanumeric codes is much more efficient and less error-prone than by full names. Additionally, country codes help organize and categorize data in a more practical and structured way.

2. Country calling code

Each country or territory has a unique numeric code (for example, metropolitan France is +33, and French Guiana, which is a French overseas department is +594). This code is necessary for international calls to be correctly routed and directed to the destination country, because without calling codes, it would be impossible to distinguish between telephone numbers from different countries. A number may be the same in several countries (for example, 1234567890 may be a valid number in France and elsewhere), but the international dialing code ensures that the call goes to the correct country.

3. Country code top-level domain

Country code top-level domains (TLDs), such as ".no" for Norway or ".sj" for Svalbard and Jan Mayen, are important for several reasons, especially when it comes to distinguishing between countries and territories and their respective identities on the internet. For example, the country code TLD helps identify the geographic origin of a website or online resource. For example, a domain like "example.co.nl" indicates that the site is associated with the Netherlands, while "example.bq" suggests a connection with BES islands. This helps users and search engines understand the location of a service or business. In addition, many users prefer to interact with local content. For example, French Guiana may trust more a website with a ".gf" domain because he expects the content to be in French and relevant to French Guiana. Country code TLDs help you create an immediate connection with your local audience.

Resuming, although these entities have no unique autonomy, they signed these treaties, which are considered international, then at the same time, it is possible to consider that these entities are considered dependent territories even without autonomy. 2804:14C:4386:8267:F9EF:107A:97C6:AA6A (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a list of these entities? 2001:8003:9100:2C01:A453:FA47:63A7:651B (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Entities with non-recognized unique autonomy

I propose the inclusion of these entities, such as Kurdistan of Iraq; Wa State of Myanmar; Gaza Strip of Palestine; Galmudug and Puntland of Somalia; Rojava of Syria; and Zanzibar of Tanzania. The reason for including these entities is because they in fact have a greater degree of autonomy, with its self-governments, juridictions and regulations although this is not as recognized internationally. For example, Wa State has its own political system, administrative divisions, army and constitution (Wa State Basic Law). Then, it's possible that these entities should be considered as dependent territories. 2804:14C:4386:8267:F9EF:107A:97C6:AA6A (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Many nations have sub-national governments and Canadian provinces even have the right to conduct their own foreign affairs in areas of provincial jurisdiction. TFD (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
You're not understanding, do you remember about my mention of Wa State, which has its own political system, administrative divisions, army and constitution? However, that's not apply to Canadian provinces and yet they are fully integrated to Canada itself, even with some degree of autonomy. 2804:14C:4386:8267:B908:E19E:A5AE:9EFD (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Dependent territory: Difference between revisions Add topic