Template talk:Countries of Asia: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:35, 29 July 2006 editHuaiwei (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users44,504 edits →Egypt??← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:01, 30 July 2006 edit undoHuaiwei (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users44,504 edits →Special territories?Next edit →
Line 112:		Line 112:
	==Special territories?==		==Special territories?==
	How is it that Asia has seven special territories, when there are in fact only ] today? Should we reword them to align with ]?--] 00:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)		How is it that Asia has seven special territories, when there are in fact only ] today? Should we reword them to align with ]?--] 00:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
			:Since no one has responded in this talk page, and ] has taken the liberty to edit without discussions here , , , I have also taken liberty in executing the following changes:
			:*Removed the phrase "Sovereign states", which did not exist in this table before its unilateral inclusion , does not exist in ], and which caused major headaches over the issue of the ROC (Taiwan) as per discussion above. Thus, we can now safely have ROC in its current location, plus the inclusion of the ].
			:*Removed attempts by multiple editors in adding ]. This is not advisable, because '''1.''' this is primarily a geographical template, and it should cover all territorial areas of Asia without overlap. There is no need to include the disputed territory when both contesting states are already listed, as is the case in other similar templates like this. '''2.''' Adding some of these disputed territories begs questions of why all other disputed territories arent listed. I do not think a list bogged down by all sorts of disputed entries is advisable.
			:*Removed ] and ], which are ] of the ]. The PRC already listed in this template covers each of their territory, and if they should be listed, then we probably have to list every subnational entity in all of Asia for the sake of NPOV.
			:Feel free to discuss the above edits here, unless one prefers to talk only in edit histories.--] 08:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:01, 30 July 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

All countries covered now

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

North Asia consists of Siberia (Russia) only.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit Wars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Egypt??

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

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

Special territories?

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

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

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

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