Talk:List of countries that border only one other country/Archive 1

Archive 1

Anomalies

Norway is listed here as having 2 borders (Finland and Sweden) - but did we forget their Russian border, or is it not relevant? Ojw 02:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. It is now corrected. — Instantnood 10:39, Feb 15 2005 (UTC)

But why list them at all? As odd as this page is, it's titled "List of countries that only border one other country" yet lists things which border two countries as "anomolies", and even includes Norway with 3 borders. Ojw 12:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Very few countries with two or three neighbours are listed. Some of them are listed because part of their borders are relatively very short, that people might confuse that they share border with only one country, but not the others. Cyprus would perhaps be the best example. — Instantnood 13:25, Feb 15 2005 (UTC)

It seems bizarre to list countries that border several countries in an article about countries that only border one other. They are not anomalies: they just don't fit the criteria for being in the article. Therefore I've been bold and removed that section. Worldtraveller 17:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is there any better word than anomalies? — Instantnood 19:53, Feb 15 2005 (UTC)

Why are they here? They are not "countries that only border one other country." Why is Djibouti an "anomaly" but the United States is not? - SimonP 20:05, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Would anybody be confused that the United States borders only one other country? — Instantnood 20:30, Feb 15 2005 (UTC)

None of the countries listed could be mistaken for one that only borders one country. I'm in favour of removing them again because it makes no sense for them to be in this article. Worldtraveller 20:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason for mentioning the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone anomaly? Are they land borders? From the description, it seems they're just sea borders, and as such should be removed from this article, which only deals with land borders. 02:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the whole section about so-called "land border anomalies" is unnecessary. Man-made constructions are not what we geographers understand to be territory, and so a tower is not a mountain, and an oil rig is not an island, and a border post on a bridge is not a land border in our mindsets. Who agrees? --Big Adamsky 06:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

Nagorno-Karabakh is not a recognized state. It is larger now then it used to be. The surrounding mountains have been conquered, so Nagorno-Karbakh is now not only a neighbour of Azerbeidzjan but also of Armenia.--Daanschr 19:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any definitive cites on this, but as a disputed area, I took it off the list anyway. -- Akb4 08:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

Cuba has a short border with the military base of Guantanamo Bay, controlled by the USA -A military base is not a border. According to international law, Guantanamo is a part of Cuba, and is only being leased indefinitely to the USA (like many other bases of the same nature elsewhere). I think this passage should be deleted. [unsigned anonymous comment]

I agree. Leased land should not count as foreign soil. However, at least the article makes it clear that it is "non-pertinent" to the topic. —Psychonaut 22:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Cuba from the islands section, and placed a more general explanation in the intro, using Cuba as an example. Cuba is not a unique situation in this context, so it does not merit its own specific entry, even if it's to explain why it is not part of the list. Guantanamo is only one example of a certain kind of territorial situation. It applies to numerous military bases operated by numerous countries throughout the world (such as Britain's Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus), and also to ceremonially ceded territories given as gifts by one country to another to commemorate that country's contributions, such as the JFK memorial in Britain, given to the United States.--165.95.228.4 07:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Countries completely surrounded

It seems to me that any countries completely surrounded by another country, such as San Marino and Lesotho, should be on this list. They only border one other country.

Ordinary Person (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Some vandal removed it, it is now restored. --Kvasir (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from vandalizing Wikipedia Thank you.

Qatar

Doesn't Qatar have a land border with the United Arab Emirates as well as with Saudi Arabia? Cruzich (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. See this map. Bazonka (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Portugal

I'm not an expert or anything, but I agree with this edit. Portugal by itself is not a peninsula, so it should be listed in the "partially surrounded with sea access" section, not the "peninsulae" section. Here's a map: maps.google.es/?ll=40.3,-7.2&spn=11.56,12.1&t=h. --Mathew5000 (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mathew5000, you're quite right. The different categorisations of countries, e.g. "peninsulae", "partially surrounded" etc., describe in what way the countries connect to their neighbouring country.

Qatar is clearly a peninsula projecting from Saudi Arabia, and Denmark's mainland is clearly a peninsula projecting from Germany. (Note that the definition of peninsula is "a piece of land projecting into water from a larger land mass.")

Portugal, on the other hand, does not project from Spain - indeed its land border is about the same length as its coastline - for a peninsula you'd expect this to be very much shorter. Together with Spain, Portugal forms the (very large) Iberian Peninsula projecting from France, but that's irrelevant for the purposes of this article - we're not referring to what's on a peninsula, we're referring to what is a peninsula.

Having said that, the "partially surrounded with sea access" category doesn't seem to be entirely appropriate for Portugal either (although it's much better than "peninsulae"). This category is suitable for The Gambia, which is almost entirely enclosed by Senegal and only has a very short coastline, but saying that Portugal (and for that matter, Monaco) is "partially surrounded" seems a bit odd.

And where should South Korea go? You could say that it's a peninsula projecting off North Korea, but actually it's a continuation of the same peninsula - so again, its inclusion in the "peninsulae" category isn't entirely appropriate. South Korea is not really a peninsula in itself.

So I propose that all of these categories be abolished, leaving just one list. Notes against each country should instead explain how they connect to their neighbours - no information would be lost, and things should be clearer. I'm happy to make this change, but I'd like to read the opinions of others first. Bazonka (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Portugal and South Korea cases are somewhat similar, both part of an Peninsula, the Iberian Peninsula and the Korean Peninsula, respectively, but in fact neither is clearly a peninsula like the Qatar and Denmark cases. I agree that all the categories be abolished - including "Sharing a Continent" (Canada), "Sharing an island" (several) and "Landlocked and completely surrounded" (several) - with an explanation for each country. Luis wiki (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really agree with you re. Portugal and S.Korea. Both are roughly rectangular - but S.Korea joins N.Korea only at a short edge, so it's in effect a peninsula on a peninsula; whereas Portugal joins to Spain with both a long and a short edge - it's part of a peninsula, but in no way could it be described as a peninsula in its own right.

However, that's all academic as I'm going to make the necessary changes to remove all such distinctions from the article. Bazonka (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

there is vandalism at bottom of page don't know how to remove it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightmarishnight (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. Bazonka (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Canada

What about Canada? It obviously has a land border with only one country! Even if it is in a number of places. It doesn't fit into any of the categories presented - which makes it something of a unique case - kind of a peninsula - but a darned big peninsula at that. I can't be bothered writing it into the article - because its so obvious, but someone else probably should if this list is going to be accurate.58.160.120.16 06:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It does border with Norway. --Usien6 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Norway? What? Where? If you mean Greenland, that's Denmark and it's not a land border. Same for St Pierre & Miquelon -- there is a water-border with France, but no land border. (And I guess Alaska is an exclave of the USA.) BeeTea 21:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, where is Canada? Canada is mentioned promptly in the intro but nowhere to be found on the list. I don't think it's a case of the peninsula, it's going to be a new category. --Kvasir 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If the border on Hans Island is indeed to be split down the center of the island as the most recent Canadian survey suggests, Canada would have to be removed from this page. SJrX10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.143.141 (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This may be worth a mention, but I wouldn't remove Canada entirely - there would need to be some explanation as to its omission from the list, or people would keep adding it back again. What is the status of the border on Hans Island? As far as I am aware, it is disputed between Canada and Denmark, but some in Canada claim that the border runs through the middle. Is this now the official Candian position? I would guess that the Danes still aren't happy with this as it would still mean giving up half of their claim. Unless this is a firm, agreed border, I would only add this as a footnote. Bazonka (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Canada has two land borders with the same country. --88.77.228.243 (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

And? It still only borders one other country. Bazonka (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Scotland and Wales

These two countries each share a land border with only one other country, i.e. England. I suggest that they be added to the list. --TraceyR (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... They are not sovereign nations, they are constituent countries within the United Kingdom which isn't quite the same thing. Bazonka (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So Scotland and Wales are constituent countries". The name of the article isn't "List of sovereign nations that border only one other sovereign nation". I see two answers to this: 1. Change the name of the article or 2. Add Scotland and Wales. It's that simple. A third option would be to delete the article - is this so notable? Even bigger sigh :)--TraceyR (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The word "country" has a number of different meanings, but it is generally taken to mean sovereign nation. That meaning is certainly used in Wikipedia articles of this nature - compare list of countries by population for example. Country can also mean an area of land with some geographical or cultural theme (e.g. Basque country or Black Country). In the UK, for historical reasons, we confusingly refer to England, Scotland etc. as countries. We like to infer some sort of nation status on them (particularly in sporting contexts), but really they are just high-level administrative subdivisions of the United Kingdom. Think about this: would you consider adding Alaska to the list, given that it only borders Canada? No, because it is not a country, but a constituent state of the USA - and it has a lot more autonomy than Scotland and Wales. The only reason you are contemplating adding Scotland and Wales is because of the name that we use for them. They are inappropriate for inclusion here, although maybe an explanatory footnote could be given. Bazonka (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am contemplating adding Wales and Scotland not just because they are called countries (as required by this list) but because e.g. they have their own parliaments, they have their own native language, they can raise taxes, have differences in their education systems and no doubt many others (fielding their own teams in many major sports championships is another indication). Why mention Alaska? I suggest that Wales and Scotland be added, with a footnote stating that some do not consider them to be countries. --TraceyR (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Many top-level subdivisions have parliaments and can raise taxes - US states, German Lander, Canadian provinces, etc. In many ways these are more like sovereign states than Scotland and Wales, the difference is that they're not called countries. Bazonka (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the German ones are. The primary meaning for the German word Land is "country". The framers of the German constitution could have called them Staaten (states) or Provinzen (provinces), but chose to call them "countries" instead. Pfainuk talk 20:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(Putting to one side the fact that none of them border only one other...) You are of course right, but I don't think that anyone would seriously contemplate including the Lander in a list of countries in English-language Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Not right at all! FWIW some German Federal State entities are actually (Frei)Staaten, but that's another linguistic red herring; apart from the odd Bavarian, no-one in his right mind would claim that any federal state in Germany is a Country - that's just specious and indicates how poor the arguments against Wales and Scotland being included really are. To be sensible about it, I suggest that having a language is a significant difference between Scotland/Wales and the other would-be countries which are/are not sovereign states. If this list is meant to include only sovereign states and not countries, then it should be named accordingly. Or perhaps another list is required, e.g. [[Countries which are not fully sovereign states which border only one other country which may or may not be a sovereign state]]. That should make it clear to everyone - or not, as the case may be. BTW, shouldn't it be "...which border only ...", rather than "...that border only..." - just a question! --TraceyR (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So having its own language makes something a country does it? Is Cornwall a country; Catalonia? Would you include them in this list? Is practically every village in Papua New Guinea a separate country? I think not.

If we rename this article, then we will also have to rename most of the articles listed under Lists of countries. And if Scotland and Wales are to be included, then it should be as no more than a footnote. Bazonka (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What I said was that "having a language is a significant difference between Scotland/Wales and the other would-be countries". Now that you mention it, Cornwall has many people who claim that it is a country (sadly, the language is extinct), but that's not relevant to this discussion. But I think that we're making progress! If lots of articles need to be renamed, that's not an argument for excluding Scotland and Wales, just an administrative head-ache or something for a bot to undertake. I've seen worse here - it's not a bad as insisting on renaming thousands of categories to change a hyphen to an m-dash!! ;-) --TraceyR (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you will face a lot of opposition if you start renaming articles. Bazonka (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh for the love of goodness. Are we gonna have to change this article's name too? in order to accomodate the United Kingdom's constituent countries? GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Constituent 'what'? --TraceyR (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we don't need to include every definition of country each time the word country appears. The UKs constituent countries are a semantic oddity, nothing more. They have their own parliaments and autonomy sure, but this is not unique to them. Neither is language, as pointed out. Anyway, say we did include Scotland and Wales, would we also include Northern Ireland? :) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Northern Ireland is another irrelevance, to add to Alaska, Cornwall, Bavaria et al. What is Prince Charles prince of? What was King James VI king of? Is everyone here historically as well as geographically challenged? Come on! ;-)--TraceyR (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is Northern Ireland any different from Scotland or Wales? It has the same top-level subdivision status within the UK. And I fail to understand the relevance of your historical argument, particularly your anachronistic reference to King James VI. Scotland is already mentioned in the Historical section of the article. Does the existence of a king or prince make something a country? There are/were numerous princes etc. in Europe and elsewhere whose principality was just a town or region. Bazonka (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

First, N.Ireland is not and has never been a separate country; it's a province, surely? Second, Scotland is not an anachronism; it had a king of its own until its king also became king of England. To answer your question as to whether the existence of a king or prince make something a country: not solely, but if an entity has a monarch (e.g. Monaco) then that is a characteristic that contributes towards its status as a country. Of course the political situation has a bearing. As to the "numerous princes etc. in Europe and elsewhere whose principality was just a town or region", I suppose that the concept of "country" wasn't so well-developed then. Scotland and Wales are self-evidently countries (and the sky looks blue). See here:

"Wales (/ˈweɪlz/ ^ⓘ, Welsh: Cymru; pronounced [ˈkəm.rɨ] ^ⓘ) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain bordered by England to its east and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west". (Source: Wikipedia)

"Scotland (Scottish Gaelic: Alba, IPA: [ˈalˠ̪apə]) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom". (Source: Wikipedia)

and the coup de grace:

"England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (in the United Kingdom) are examples of entities that are not sovereign states, but which are commonly regarded and referred to as countries", (Source: Wikipedia) although I personally disagree about N.Ireland, so I didn't 'embolden' it! In fact, I doubt that many people in N.Ireland on either side of the politico-religious divide regard it as a country either. Perhaps I'll be WP:BOLD and remove it. :-) --TraceyR (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to my first post in this thread. They're a different sort of country. Yes, they are called countries, but they cannot be compared with sovereign nations. Bazonka (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ditto: "The name of the article isn't List of sovereign nations that border only one other sovereign nation." It's not enough to say that "they're a different sort of country". The article is a list of countries - it doesn't specify that some sorts of country are to be excluded. I suggest that it's time to add Wales and Scotland (but not Alaska and, sadly, Cornwall) and move on. By all means add a footnote to mention that some people don't consider them to be real countries, whatever that means. --TraceyR (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have added a new section to the article to cover these constituent countries. I will absolutely oppose any attempt to move these to the main table. Bazonka (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, at least the situation now has visibilty. I see that there has been some opposition to the additions, which Bazonka has seen off. Well done Bazonka! --TraceyR (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with an addition based on arbitrary semantics. TraceyR you mention "status as a country", but that's not a status. It's a name. It conveys no more meaning than you give it, which is why dictionaries have around five entries for the word. We don't cover Bark (utterance) in our Bark article, despite their equal...bark status. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I too, 'oppose' adding Scotland & Wales. These aren't sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better. Agree with Chipmunkdavis. Pfainuk talk 17:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If you read the whole thread, you will see that this article has nothing to do with sovereign states, just with countries. It also has nothing to do with arbitrary semantics. Look at the title of the page - does it mention sovereign states anywhere? No, I thought not. If you think that this article should list sovereign states only, you are free to create another list, as suggested (mutatis mutandis) in the third entry: '''''List of sovereign states which border on one other sovereign state only''''' would be a possible name. Of course there might be a problem defining what a sovereign state is - but that's life! --TraceyR (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Country is more closely associated with 'sovereign state'. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you a WP:RS for that? The editors of Scotland, Wales, England and even Northern Ireland would disagree with your opinion. :-) --TraceyR (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Lack of consensus for getting them included here, does count. Thus why they've not been included. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't trump accuracy and reliability. This is an encyclopedia, with certain standards to adhere to. As it stands, the article is about countries and Wikipedia states that Scotland and Wales are countries. Therefore, the standard of consistency requires either that these countries be included here or that the other articles state that they are not countries. It's that simple. --TraceyR (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

England, Scotland, etc are not countries in the sense of international law. By the same logic, lets include Basque Country too in the county listings because it is obviously called a country. This is nonsense, please delete promptly the UK subsection from this article. Otherwise, please include all such countries in ALL country listings! --maxval (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not the point of the argument. Before making a comment, please read the whole thread. --TraceyR (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

TraceyR, you rightly rejected my suggestion that Alaska should be included in this list, despite the fact that it borders only Canada. Why did you reject it? Presumably because it's not called a country. However, US states are much more like real countries than Scotland or Wales, but of course they're not called countries. This is the nub of the problem. Should something that isn't a true country, but is called a country, be included in the list? I, GoodDay, Chipmunkdavis, Pfainuk, and Maxval think not. The weight of opinion is heavily against you. Bazonka (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You can't keep makinh the same point with different words. Whether Wales and Scotland are 'true' countries in your opinion isn't relevant. The nub of the question is whether Scotland and Wales are commonly considered to be countries. and all of the evidence I have produced from Wikipedia shows that they are. 'Sovereign' countries, 'real' (whatever that means) countries, true (whatever that means) countries, countries recognised by the UN or by international law - these are all qualifications 'not' relevant to this article. --TraceyR (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You continue to make the same point as well. We're not discussing "true countries", but different kinds of countries. This article covers one kind. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that an explanatory note should be included in the article, something like "The term country in this article is used as a synonym for an independent sovereign state", and then all references to pseudo-countries as England, Wales, Nothern Ireland, Scotland, etc can be removed. --maxval (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

An UK constituent countries section should not be added to the list.Luis wiki (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is absolutely clear. Moreover this part needs to be deleted from the article at all. It must not be present even as a subsection. --maxval (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely the article should be what it says it is - a list of countries fulfilling the stated criteria; otherwise we're in Humpty-Dumpty country (which has no borders with the real world) where a word "means exactly what you mean it to mean, no more and no less". In this case, you would have the word country mean solely "an independent, sovereign state", but that's not true in the real world, including the title of this list. By all means create a new article (or rename this ome) "List of independent sovereign states that border only one other sovereign state" and then remove all references you like to countries which are not sovereign states. I have no problem with that whatsoever, but you cannot exclude countries such as Scotland and Wales from this article. --TraceyR (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

We can exclude'em & we are. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a list of countries, taking one definition of the word. As I said before, the article Bark covers one definition of the word bark. The article on Evolution covers one type of evolution. Anyway, an article's scope, and especially a lists scope, is defined in the lead not the title. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the last two comments. This article is NOT about countries in all the possible meanings of the word country, it is only about one of its specific meanings. --maxval (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Then the article's title should say which specific meaning it covers: change the name. Think of Wikipedia's users, who come across the article "List of countries ..." and discover that what it really should be called is "List of independent sovereign states...". It's not user-friendly as it is now. If renaming the article is unacceptable, then why not have sections, along the lines of "Independent sovereign states...", "Countries enclosed entirely within other states...", "Constituent countries of sovereign states..." - I leave it up to your imagination(s) as to the many definitions of the word "country" which could be covered by the article. Those arguing that Alaska is a country could have a field day; who knows, perhaps some inventive soul will find a way to include Cornwall. Including sections along those lines is probably better than having a separate article for each type of country. As it is, you want the article's title to be a misleading indication of its content. It's like having a "List of African fauna" and then excluding all birds, reptiles etc, justifying this idiosyncratic interpretation by adding a rider that "The term animal in this article is used as a synonym for land-based mammal". This discussion really is a abstruse as that; I'm just puzzled that this isn't obvious to more people. --TraceyR (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that Alaska is a country - it isn't. But it's more like a country that Scotland or Wales. Bazonka (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Define what you mean by "more like a country".--TraceyR (talk)

When does Fauna mean land based mammal? I don't see how we could ever justify a list where the inclusion criteria falls down to the inventiveness of our editors. Some words have multiple meanings in English, and I'm sure every English speaker understands that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you for your support: that is exactly my point. People here seem to want to restrict this article to one meaning only, which is weird. BTW, Fauna doesn't mean "land-based mammal". That was an analogy.--TraceyR (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

In that case it was a false analogy, as the situation here is where there are actually multiple meanings. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"Fauna" is an inclusive term (or set) just like "country". "Land-based mammal" in a sub-set of fauna, just as "independent sovereign state" is a sub-set of "country". It seems a fair analogy to me. --TraceyR (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC).

Different subsets aren't the same as different definitions. There is no umbrella that connects say Scotland and Mozambique, other than their being political entities. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No, subsets are not the same as definitions, but the concept of a definition as defining a set of entities can be useful when explaining things logically. As a matter of interest, did you check e.g. Mozambique (where it states "Mozambique, officially the Republic of Mozambique (Portuguese: Moçambique or República de Moçambique), is a country in southeastern Africa") and Scotland (which states "Scotland (Scottish Gaelic: Alba) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom") (my emphasis) before making that statement?

1. The highlighted words "a country" are common to both Wikipedia statements
2. So, according to Wikipedia, both Mozambique and Scotland belong to the set of "countries".
3. According to Wikipedia, England is also a country.
4. The country of Scotland borders on the country of England.
5. In fact, the country of Scotland borders only on the country of England.
6. So Scotland fulfils the criterion of being "a country which borders only on one other country".
7. The same logic applies to Wales

Now I realise that someone will say "yes, but it's not that sort of country"; I'm afraid that I can't help that person, other than to suggest that he/she read through this thread carefully.
I also know that Scotland is not an independent sovereign state, but that has no bearing on the above statements, which are concerned only with the set of countries. They are concerned simply with the fact that, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, both England and Scotland/Wales are countries and that Scotland and Wales border only on England. --TraceyR (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I did, and that doesn't affect my argument at all. I assume you think a list of dates needs to include the Date fruit, Calender dates, and the various cities called Date? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It would depend upon the name of the list, I suppose. If an article were called e.g. "List of date varieties grown in Morocco", that would suggest that one would not expect to find calendar dates, names of towns etc in the article. :-)--TraceyR (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely the logical solution is just to change the name of the article? The problem is the term "country". England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries that are part of a larger sovereign state (or, to use the British Government's terminiology, "countries within a country".) JonC^Talk 22:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Either change the name to fit the content or change the content to fit the name. My preference at the moment would be the latter, but the name(s) suggested would influence my opinion. The current name is simpler than any alternative I could think of. --TraceyR (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be labouring under the misunderstanding that the title of a list defines the content of the list. In fact, policy and guidelines make it clear that the title need only describe the contents of the list, and indeed should not be over-precise (as you suggest). As such, and particularly given that this list does use a definition of the word "country" to define inclusion on this list, there is no reason why we have to either change the basis for the list or to change the name of the list. Pfainuk talk 17:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Was the last comment addressed to me? Actually I'm not the one trying to be "over-precise" - I am arguing for the list to more inclusive than those editors who wish to restrict it to mentioning solely "independent sovereign states". If a political entity is commonly agreed to be a country (as Scotland and Wales are) and if it satisfies the general criteria (in this case, bordering on only one other such country, as Scotland and Wales do), then it should be mentioned. The argument explained in some detail above was presented to show that the over-precise meaning being assigned to the word "country" by several editors was not supported by Wikipedia, as you have just confirmed. There is therefore no reason to exclude Scotland and Wales from the main table. --TraceyR (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite how you managed to infer that from my comment, or from the policies and guidelines I pointed you at, I suppose I'll never know.

You seem to be arguing that the rules don't allow us to be more precise than the title. Actually, in cases where a title includes words have more than one meaning, the rules require us to be more precise in what we include than our title.

Your misunderstanding appears to be in the notion that the title defines "general criteria". That a "list of dates" would have to include fruits, calendar dates and cities along side each other, even though this is patently absurd. That a list restricted to sovereign states, as this one clearly is, has to refer to sovereign states the title. All of this is nonsense. Pfainuk talk 18:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk and Chipmunkdavis: What on earth have dates got to do with this? The word "date" can mean several things, that much I grant you, but these things (fruit, calendar dates, towns called Date) are not even remotely related to each other. As an analogy that really is patently absurd nonsense.

As for Pfainuk's opinion that this list is "clearly restricted to sovereign states", this is self-evidently not the case. The title mentions countries so it should include entities which are generally considered to be countries, not just a subset of countries which happen to be satisfy a restricted set of criteria in a few editors' minds. What matters is what a reader has in his/her mind when looking up the "list of countries that border only one other country". Since Scotland and Wales are generally referred to as being countries (source: Wikipedia), why exclude some countries in such an arbitrary way?

How about this: (1) we all accept that Scotland and Wales are countries, even if they are only 'constituent' countries (but hey, better a 'constituent' country than not being a country at all!), (2) we add them to the main table, with (3) a footnote explaining that their status as countries, although generally recognised (source: Wikipedia), is disputed by some.

Finally, I must admit that I am comforted at the moment by the fact that the chance reader who finds this article will discount its reliability because of the banners which proclaim (and have done since July 2010!) that it is (a) unsupported by citations and (b) considered by some to be of dubious notability. If each contributor to this as yet almost fruitless discussion had instead added just one citation, the article would have been improved by their actions. There's not much can be done about its notability, I fear. :-( --TraceyR (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

What about Northern Ireland? JonC^Talk 19:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are already in the article. They're a part of the United Kingdom, which is a country that borders only one country. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

They're countries that are part of the United Kingdom. Per the article's name/scope, they should be included too. JonC^Talk 19:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

They may be called 'countries', but they're actually 'constituent countries'. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Editors should be aware that this discussion has been inappropriately canvassed here and here. Pfainuk talk 19:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk: As you should know, WP:CANVASS states: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." As the diffs at Talk:Scotland and ((Talk:Wales]] show, I mentioned that this discussion was ongoing - "perfectly acceptable" according to WP:Canvass. I did not canvass for or against any view - "perfectly acceptable". My intent was "to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus" - again, "perfectly acceptable". Labelling this as "inappropriate" is itself inappropriate. Somehow, I not surprised. --TraceyR (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Somehow, I'm not surprised. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I was going to wade into this discussion and remind people that, for the sake of coherence, the content of a list should ideally match its title (it's incredibly easy to achieve and one wonders why anyone would argue against the concept), but then I remembered that this list is right up there with List of fictional leopards, jaguars, and panthers (cougars or pumas) in terms of trivia. What makes this a notable list, other than the length of the arguments about it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but needless to say, we don't have to exactly match the title in every detail. In some fields it's "incredibly easy to achieve" the content of the list matching its title, but when there are significant grey areas then you need some kind of objective and verifiable standard. We call it the list of dinosaurs, not the list of genera that have ever been included in the superorder Dinosauria, excluding class Aves and purely vernacular terms, but including genera that are now considered invalid, doubtful or that were not formally published, junior synonyms of more established names, and genera that are no longer considered dinosaurs, which is what we would have to call it if we had to define the list in the title.

Length of arguments? Actually, until this month it had been over three years since the last major discussion here. I can agree that it's a bit trivial, and its notability is reasonably in question, but while we have it, it is at an appropriate title for its contents. Pfainuk talk 20:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, some people are going to expect non-sovereign countries like Wales and Scotland to be included in this article, and so we need to come to some sort of a compromise. I totally disagree that they should be included in the main list, but I do not object to a note elsewhere. I thought I had made a reasonable compromise here: [1], but it was reverted. Shall we just go back to that and let this discussion rest? Bazonka (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not keen because it's systemic bias in favour of the UK (and thus non-neutral). Better to change "land borders" to "land borders between sovereign states" in the first sentence, clarifying the scope of the list and making it clearer which definition of the word "country" we're using. Pfainuk talk 20:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Indeed. Whilst the content does not have to match the title in every detail, if it does not, then it needs an explanatory note clearing up the doubt. There are a number of definitions of the word 'country'. This list makes no mention of which definition it uses, therefore, anyone can reasonably question the content of the list. Arguments that the criteria are self-evident are a nonsense. Just put a paragraph at the top detailing what kind of country is included. That much is incredibly easy to achieve, and would remove the reason for arguments like this one, which is what I was referring to when I mentioned arguments above. This argument is really rather long, and more than a bit silly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

An explanatory note will do fine. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

We do need such a definition here, certainly. Indeed, this is a common failing that we need to resolve more generally. I believe that the fact that the main list is restricted to sovereign states is clear from the fact that no other entities are included (this is simply a point of fact). Given this, we do need to unambiguously state the inclusion criterion in the lede. Pfainuk talk 20:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added a note describing the inclusion criteria. Move it to a more prominent place in the lede if necessary. Bazonka (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"The fact that the main list is restricted to sovereign states is clear from the fact that no other entities are included". Brilliant! --TraceyR (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Note's in place, so now we can end this long winded discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Since, in this article, "country" is used as a synonym for "sovereign state", I have changed most occurrences of the word "country" to "sovereign state" or "state" as appropriate. This makes it clearer for the reader and renders the explanatory note redundant. Why say one thing when you mean another? This makes it immediately plain to the reader what the article is about.--TraceyR (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We're not saying one thing when we mean another - we say "country" because we mean "country", by one (not all) of this word's common definitions; we're also clarifying which definition. The use of the word "state" is even more confusing than the word "country" - are you arguing against yourself for the inclusion of Alaska? Admittedly, with the word "sovereign" in front, it's not so bad, but "country" is simpler, matches the description used in all other lists of countries, and since the introduction of clarification note there is no need for confusion. By all means move the note into a more prominent place in the lede if necessary, but there is no need for other changes. Bazonka (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Why make life more difficult for the reader? If "sovereign state" is what you mean by "country", say "sovereign state". That way everyone knows what is meant and there is no need for the Humpty-Dumpty note - "When I say country I really mean sovereign state". --TraceyR (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We have reached a perfectly workable compromise solution that is consistent with other similar Wikipedia articles. I seems to me that you are trying to WP:WIN. Bazonka (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:WIN states that "Wikipedia is not about winning. Disputes over content or behavior are not meant to be "won". They are meant to be resolved per consensus, with all users here for the betterment of the project at all times willing to yield to consensus." So yes, we need to reach a consensus. A consensus is not possible when every constructive suggestion is reverted and the result is then called "a perfectly workable compromise". Re consistency with other articles: The articles on Scotland and Wales begin by stating that each is a country (within the sovereign state of the UK). The only true progress here has been the addition of a note, which, as has been pointed out by someone else, is a tacit admission that the subject of the article is unclear. Why are the "sovereign state-ists" so adamant that the word country be used where the term "sovereign state" would be more appropriate? Are they trying to win at the expense of clarity and user-friendliness? It seems so to me. I suggest looking at a long comment] by User Mark (search on the string "Hi Matt" to find it quickly) - it covers a lot of the ground that we have been over here. Of course there is no one right answer here, and Merk's contribution on that website is surrounded by comments from both camps. How about a compromise here, in which "sovereign state" replaces "country" where appropriate? This would clarify (and thus improve) the content while in no way changing its meaning. If this were done, no-one (not even I) would expect Scotland and Wales to be mentioned.--TraceyR (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wales & Scotland are already in the article, due to the fact they're a part of a country called the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Dependent territories section

I propose deleting Macau and Hongkong. They are NOT dependent territories. The sentence "The land border and coastline, although no longer one between two states, are still controlled as though Hong Kong were an international exclave." is not a valid argument. Hongkong is fully part of China. Yes, there is a border control between Hongkong and the remaining part of China, but this is an INTERNAL border, so it is not relevant. --maxval (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Similar situation with Greenland and Saint Martin. They should go too if HK and Macau do. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in the case of Saint Martin. Not in the case of Greenland, as we can make a distinction between Denmark in a narrow sense meaning European Denmark and the Kingdom of Denmark meaning all territories under Danish rule. --maxval (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We could make the same distinction between Mainland China and HK/Macau. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Why? There is no such distincton de iure. In the case of Denmark there is a de iure distinction between the "Kingdom" and Denmark in narrow sense. --maxval (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The distinction is quite similar. In both cases, a central government has special territories which have their own autonomous governments. I'm not sure about HK/Macau with the communist government, but Greenland even has representatives in the Danish Parliament. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_People%27s_Congress#Membership --maxval (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ta. Pity there's no numbers there. Anyway, that means both Greenland and Hong Kong have autonomous governments, are part of a unitary state, and have representatives in the central assemblies (Denmark's being the Folketing). That's a pretty similar de jure distinction. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change article title

Hi all

A simple solution to the question of whether Scotland and Wales should be included in this article is to have an unambiguous title. If the title were changed to 'List of sovereign countries that border only one other' the inclusion criteria for the list would be clear for all. What possible argument can there be against having a clearer title? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No need. A solution has already been found. Bazonka (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree but the fact that a note is being provided to clarify the intended meaning of the title is surely proof that the title itself is not sufficiently clear. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Such notes are common to most featured lists (and should be common to all of them per the criteria), and are required by the relevant style guideline. Pfainuk talk 21:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION. In any case, it falls foul of the same argument (it being trivial to source that the Navajo Nation is a "sovereign nation"). Pfainuk talk 21:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

But WP:Precision doesn't actually say what Pfainuk claims. Amongst other things it says this: "However, when a topic's most commonly used name, as reflected in reliable sources, is ambiguous (can refer to more than one topic covered in Wikipedia), and the topic is not primary, that name cannot be used and so must be disambiguated." Since "List of countries..." is evidently ambiguous (see long-winded discussion above and the need to have a clarifying note), it needs to be disambiguated. I for one welcome Fishiehelper2's constructive suggestion. --TraceyR (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If this is a serious proposal then you should follow the WP:RM procedure. And if you're really serious then you should also nominate most of the articles listed under Lists of countries for good measure. I will vote Oppose and I suspect I won't be alone. Bazonka (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The most commonly used name for a list of sovereign states is a list of countries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that you need to back that claim with some sort of evidence. Otherwise it's just an opinion. --TraceyR (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Search google for a start. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's up to the person making the claim to justify it. --TraceyR (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Results: The UK constituents simply don't appear in the lists. I've searched for them before, and I remember last time I spent ages and the only time I found one was on a list where there was an entry for England, but none for the United Kingdom, suggesting the website was using England to mean the UK. Please tell me if results from your end are different. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous argument! Everyone accepts that England is a country - it's just not a sovereign county. If this article only wants sovereign countries in the list, it should say so. I've made this clear in the first line, but I agree it would be better if the article title itself reflected this. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Spiritofstgeorge. Your change is better than having a footnote. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What's ridiculous are these apparent continued attempts across these 'countries' articles, to somehow give England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland equal status with the United Kingdom. The UK is a country, its four parts are constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody, as far as I can tell, is suggesting that here. Can you point to an example? What is strange is that people fail to recognise that the (constituent) countries are just what that term states: countries which are constituent parts of the sovereign state of the UK. It's as if adding the adjective "constituent" magically transmutes the noun "country" into something else. Please note: no-one here, to my knowledge, is claiming that Scotland and Wales are sovereign states; some do however claim that contituent countries aren't countries - now that strikes me as being ... well, yes ... ridiculous. No offence intended, but I do find this weird.--TraceyR (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Call'em what ya will, they don't belong on this article as seperate entities. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the point, GoodDay - they do belong in this article if it keeps its current title! If you want non sovereign countries excluded (which I don't object to in itself) the easy way to ensure that outcome is to have a title that makes its scope totally unambiguous. What is such a big deal about adding the word 'sovereign' to the title as I suggested above? I can't really see any advantage in maintaining a title is is bound to be open to different interpretations. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If it'll stop the calls for Scotland's & Wales' addition? change it. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You say "they do belong in this article if it keeps its current title". Not necessarily. Because, as per WP:SAL#Lead, the title does not define the list. The lede does. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot refer to a "list of countries" and then clarify what we mean by the ambiguous word "countries" in the lede. I know of no concise, neutral and accurate term for the concept that we are calling "sovereign states" that would restrict the list to that concept if your argument held. Not even "sovereign states", since by your argument that would have to include US states (see for example Article 1, Section 26 of the Louisiana State Constitution). Pfainuk talk 18:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And if you change the article's title, then you will be introducing an inconsistency unless you also change the titles of most of the other articles listed under Lists of countries. Do none or do all. Bazonka (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No need to change the articles title. Everybody - almost everybody - understands that a constituent country is not a country. For those who dont understand this, there is an explanation in the introductory part of the article. --maxval (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

... and just in case someone is still unclear as to the meaning of the word "country", (s)he can follow the wikilink to the country article and read

"A country is a geographical region. A country may be the territory of a sovereign state, the territory of a non-sovereign (or formerly sovereign) political division, or a region associated with a certain people or certain characteristics. Sometimes it is used to refer both to sovereign states and to other political entities, while other times it refers only to states. It is not uncommon for general information or statistical publications to adopt the wider definition for purposes such as illustration and comparison.

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (in the United Kingdom) are examples of entities that are not sovereign states, but which are commonly regarded and referred to as countries. Former states such as Bavaria (now part of Germany) and Piedmont (now part of Italy) would not normally be referred to as "countries" in contemporary English."

.

These two paragraphs are supported by 14 references. As Sooty would have said; "That's the way to do it".--TraceyR (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We're not adding Wales & Scotland, so please drop it already. You're beating a dead horse, now. GoodDay (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the previous thread and relax. I wrote there that the clarification now in the lead is fine, since it makes the scope of the article clear. I just highlighted the "country" article today to show that not everyone shares the very narrow definition of country (=sovereign country) propagated by several contributors here. --TraceyR (talk)

Sorry, these types of discussions over the months, have gotten me tempermental. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The majority of those references are examples to prove a point, rather than a source that can backup the statement being made. It's a terrible article that treads perilously close to SYNTH, if not entering it. Not all geographical regions are called countries, so our Country article doesn't even define what it's about. Not a good basis for any argument. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So much for consistency between articles (a Wikipedia dream!). I could quote Many Rice-Davies here, but instead I'll just wish you and yours a good day. Wikipedia has enjoyed a marginal improvement to this article over the last week or so. Thanks to all who made 'good faith' contributions.--TraceyR (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

de facto and disputed

the list does in fact include entries for many (perhaps all, except for local guerilla insurgent groups) de facto areas. I think this is good, but the intro paragraph should be changed to reflect this. -- Akb4 07:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, I looked at some of the ongoing disputes and changed my mind. I've now removed all the disputed areas (Nagorno-Karabakh and Cyprus). I have no philosophical objection to them being listed, it would just involve a pile of research; the number of disputed areas is large. I removed the statement at top about dependent territories and made a subsection so we could keep Gibraltar, Guantanomo Bay, and St Martin's, since otherwise folks will probably just try to add those again, or be confused, or think the page is wrong. I moved Macao and Hong Kong to historic, with text about their unusual status. The only remaining issue I can see is the British dependencies on Cyprus; I have no clue what to do with those, since how many countries they border depends on if you consider Turkish North Cyprus a country or not. -- Akb4 08:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In Cyprus, if you travel to North, they give you stamp in the passport (you are crossing real borders with customs). So despite the fact that Northern Cyprus is recognized only by Turkey, I think it should on the list, as it is really a "border". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.250.245.249 (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Cyprus

What's up with Cyprus and the "unofficial borders" statement? My family have visited recently, and Greek Cyprus has a very definite border with Turkish Cyprus. It crosses the whole island -- if you want to visit the north, you have to fly to istanbul first, and if you want to visit the south, you have to fly from Europe. The UN seem to agree that it's a border, just from the number of soldiers guarding it. If anything, the British military bases are the anomalous part of Cyprus' borders, because they sit on a couple of points across the border. Ojw 20:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

As the page exists at the end of 2016, Cyprus is mentioned as having one border; that of the UK bases. I would counter that if that is to stand, then for consistency you would have to take UK off the 1-border (i.e., with Ireland) list - otherwise you're trying to have it both ways (i.e., Ireland & Cyprus).A: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.63.49 (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The British sovereign bases in Cyprus are not part of the UK. Similar to Gibraltar which borders Spain, they are overseas territories belongong to the UK, but are not part of the UK. So there's nothing wrong with saying that the UK borders only Ireland. Gibraltar and the Cyprus bases are already mentioned in the Dependent territories section of the article. Bazonka (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Disputed Countries

Hey guys, as there are disputed about whether or not some entities are countries, I have created a new section about disputed countries. Hope this serves well... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityrailsaints (talk • contribs) 06:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

New Section

I created a new section for countries whose countryhood is disputed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityrailsaints (talk • contribs) 06:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Why was my list of Disputed Countries Deleted?

Please explain Cityrailsaints (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Notable?

Given that that there is a seeming lack of agreement as to which entities are countries, and which of those border only one other, the question must be asked, is this list notable enough to be worth the hassle? Shimmin 19:39, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

• it's interesting and it's certainly more notable than a ton of crap wikipedia hosts. so, yes. SchmuckyTheCat 22:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(response to Shimmin) If this list is not notable enough then it's not the only list of such. — Instantnood 07:13, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Why emphasize on land border? Isn't sea border equally important? For example, Canada has a sea border with Greenland, therefore Greenland can be considered a neighbour territory of Canada. --Miklcct (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ireland, East Timor

I would question the validity of Ireland as an example ("These can be fears of an outright take-over as has happened historically to such states as East Timor and Ireland"). It's certainly true that England took over Ireland progressively from the 1100s, but England and Ireland aren't contiguous, and nor were the UK and Ireland as separate political entities until 1921. If anything, these days the most lively fear held by anyone in that respect is Unionists' worry that the part currently within the United Kingdom will become part of the Irish State.

Does today's expansion of that sentence help cover things? If not the general rule here at wikipedia is that if it's incorrect you can always fix it yourself. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 14:45, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Isthmuses and peninsulas

Hong Kong is definitely a peninsula (check the map on that page). Also, there are no isthmuses in the list, by definition. And I've removed the anomalies, as I can't see a reason why they're particularly interesting. sjorford:// 17:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltar and Macao are peninsulas connected to the continent with isthmuses. Strictly speaking Hong Kong is not a peninsula. The anomalies might not be particularly interesting, but they have to be mentioned so that readers won't think they're missed out. — Instantnood 17:36, Feb 11 2005 (UTC)

Biafra

Biafra was only shortly bordering Cameroon (for a few months). See this map for details. — Instantnood 19:55, Feb 15 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've clarified the text in relation to Biafra. Worldtraveller 20:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. — Instantnood 20:26, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)

Edits by SchmuckyTheCat

Hong Kong and Macao, but not Gibraltar and the Netherlands Antilles, were removed from the list by SchmuckyTheCat. — Instantnood 22:48 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

• I make no claim to knowledge about the nation-status of Gibraltar or Netherlands Antillies. If you say they are not countries then yes, they should be removed. SchmuckyTheCat 22:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They're dependent territories of the UK and Netherlands respectively, not independent nations, and so if Macao and Hong Kong are removed they should also be removed. As discussed above, I think that as the article title uses the word country, it does not make sense to mention sub-national entities. Worldtraveller 00:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• then do it. I'm not defending them. SchmuckyTheCat 00:47, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The same have to be done on other pages with similar titles, if you think it is right to remove. — Instantnood 01:15 Mar 2 2005 (UTC)

• ok, go do that then. It's not my responsibility to correct every single article when I fix a mistake in one. SchmuckyTheCat 01:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete?

Listing the USA because of Guantanamo? Not listing the UK because of the channel tunnel? Instantnood and his Chinese politics. Constant "country/not a country" debates. This isn't encyclopaedic. Are there any plans to delete this article? Ojw 19:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What constitutes a "country" can be a difficult question, and any sufficiently large listing will probably have some controversy. Perhaps even the term "border" can be fuzzy in some cases. But a debate over a few entries does not make the whole list unencyclopaedic. I would oppose deleting this after so many editors have worked to improve it. Jonathunder 20:31, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

The United States is not listed, as it borders Canada and Mexico. What is listed is Cuba, for having part of its island leased by the United States.

Cuba and the reference of Channel Tunnel were not added by me. — Instantnood 13:44, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

An interesting chain of events

The following lists the chain of events which led to the inclusion of entities which are not countries to the list. I suppose it takes some detective work to come up with this, although it isnt really that difficult. I leave it up to you guys to interpret the intentions behind this sequence of events:

The old version

As seen in the version timestamped 07:25, 7 Jan 2005 in this page's edit history, the page listed only countries (as commonly accepted to refer to fully independent entities as recognised by the UN), with an opening line which reads:

"This is a list of countries that only have a land border with one other country."

Carbon copy created

On 01:21, 4 Feb 2005, a similarly titled page called List of countries bordering only one country was created by a user named Instantnood. In the first version of that page, the opening line reads:

"This is a list of countries and dependent territories having land border with only one country. Notes: This list includes dependent territories and some disputed or occupied areas that are de facto independent."

Interestingly, that first version includes Hong Kong and Macau as the only two non-independent entities, while Singapore was listed under a classification called "Arguable".

Merger?

Within a few hours, the page has evolved to this version at 03:13, 4 Feb 2005. Notably, he copied the introductory text from the first article into his version of the article:

"Nations that only share a land border with one other country often have concerns about domination by the other state if it is larger. These can be fears of an outright take-over as has happened historically to such states as East Timor, which was part of Indonesia until very recently, and Ireland, which was part of the United Kingdom until 1921. Today concerns are often about economic domination as with the Canada/United States relationship or the Denmark/Germany one. Because much trade goes over land these countries are often heavily reliant on their single neighbour."

In addition, he added the "merge" request with the above page within the same edit.

Back in this page, he also added the "merge" request at 03:11, 4 Feb 2005

Merged

By 18:57, 7 Feb 2005, User:Sjorford fulfilled the merger request. This effectively places Instantnood's introductory paragraph concerning non-independent entities, as well as his entries for these, into that list as can be seen in edit version 19:01, 7 Feb 2005, without User:Sjorford probably suspecting anything unusual.

Contestations

Since this merger, debates over the inclusion of entities which are not countries ensued, not surprisingly, as we can see above and in the history of edits. It is interesting that Instantnood made no mention about the merger process which sparked this discourse. In addition, as we can all see from the above discussions, Instantnood was quoted as saying:

"They aren't sovereign states, but the same treatment should applies to all lists of countries with the same setting. The notice at the top of the page already tells this list includes not only sovereign states, without any confusions."

It has to be noted, that again he did not mention who was the one who wrote that paragraph, and nor did he mention how it ends up being introduced to this page.

Deductions and comments?

The chain of events as I noted ends here. Feel free to comment on the above conduct.--Huaiwei 10:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments

At the time when I created this page titled "List of countries bordering only one country", I did not know this page already existed.

The following words were copied from another list of countries, the list of countries and capitals in native languages.

" Notes: This list includes dependent territories and some disputed or occupied areas that are de facto independent. "

When I discovered there was in fact a list created, I requested for a merger, and I started the work of merging, by copying the following text to the version that I created.

" Nations that only share a land border with one other country often have concerns about domination by the other state if it is larger. These can be fears of an outright take-over as has happened historically to such states as East Timor, which was part of Indonesia until very recently, and Ireland, which was part of the United Kingdom until 1921. Today concerns are often about economic domination as with the Canada/United States relationship or the Denmark/Germany one. Because much trade goes over land these countries are often heavily reliant on their single neighbour. "

Hong Kong and Macao were not the only non-sovereign states. Gibraltar and the Netherlands Antilles were also included. Singapore was included as an arguable case, as it is connected to Johore, Malaysia by a causeway, i.e. not above water.

Huaiwei failed to agree with the convention that on many lists of countries non-sovereign states are also listed as countries. SchmuckyTheCat and ExplorerCDT said they did not agree with the convention, but they would not proceed to change the other lists sharing the same problem.

SchmuckyTheCat said " It's not my responsibility to correct every single article when I fix a mistake in one. ". She/he also said " I strive to be correct, not complete. ".

ExplorerCDT said " Rome wasn't built in a day. Notice or not, the article is misleading and inaccurate, and is only one of a myriad of articles needing correction. Thus, if you feel this is a battle that should start here, let's start here and rush the barricades with me, or you can just shut up, let my changes stand, and stop being an ass. "

None of them have proceeded to change the content of other lists of countries with the same problem.

Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat have had a record of removing Hong Kong and Macao to be listed like a country on other pages, such as list of highways, list of subnational entities. While I am not going to question on their intentions, their previous records have to be noted and taken into consideration. — Instantnood 14:09, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Response

• We can, by giving User:Instantnood the benefit of the doubt, make the assumption that he was indeed unaware that a page of similar topic exists when he created his page. This, I do not consider a major problem. But as can be seen from my presentation of the subsequent proceedings, I have various concerns. One. when seeing the existance of the older page, surely he would have noticed that the original listing excludes non-independent countries, which differs from his presentation? Why did he suggest a merge without bringing up this point for discussion, or even informing the person doing the merger about it? Can we attribute this behavior to genuine oversight, or something more intentional? Two. When the merger took effect, and when people (not neccesary just the few people he loves to single out) saw reason to question the existance of non-independent countries in the list, why does he consistently fail to acknowledge that the result of the above content was due to the merger, and that he was the one who took it upon himself to define the scope of the list in his own page, and allowed it to be moved to this page without the consent of contributors here? It was not like he did not visit this site. He was clearly very much actively editing this page after the merger, as well as participating in many of the subsequent discussions over this issue and others. Can he claim ignorance? If not, is such behavior laudable?

• There is no "convention" that non-country entities will be listed in all listings involving countries. Show us concrete evidence for that claim. Listings involving countries has been noted to be rather inconsistent when it comes to non-country entities. Some lists include them, some do not. Some list only certain types of dependent territories, others do not. Some lists see a need to seperate non-independent entities from independent ones. Clearly, there is no such thing as a convention dictating that all country lists should include all forms of political entities where applicable. Each situation is assessed on its own merits. On what basis can he claim to be justified in insisting that all country lists should include or exclude political entities which are not independent states, and that other users who see problems in this page has to display consistency in every other page about countries, for example? And on what basis can he claim that I "failed to agree with the convention", which does not seem to exist?

• Therefore, I do not see why he has to subsequently talk about my point of view over the whole issue, or that of SchmuckyTheCat and ExplorerCDT. Heaping accusations on others do not absolve him from any blame and guilt. This kind of "you bite me, I bite you back" mentality is not going to get him far, and it does not reflect very well on the writer too. In fact, I was quite amused when he highlighted some of our "record of removing Hong Kong and Macao to be listed like a country on other pages". Perhaps he failed to mention that in many cases, it also involves undoing the edits he tried to advance across the site.

• To sum up, I must say that I find the above behavior highly dishonest and calculative even, with the increasingly apparant agenda of using this site as an avenue to advance certain political views, and in light of protests generated elsewhere, has taken the "indirect route" (and therefore, harder to detect route) to archieve his aims? Indeed, I can try to continue to assume good faith, but when I noticed him starting to "cause irritation" in small but obvious ways in his innate urge to "take revenge", perhaps this is someone who is taking things too personally, and has placed his personal interests above that of factual accuracy and the overall good of this site?--Huaiwei 15:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• iawtc from Huaiwei.

• i will just ignore Instantnoods fcatual problems in his statement. and i completely defend that i am not a completist. it is not my job to research the political status of every former colony in a list of ocuntries especially when i may not even recognize them s former colonies or have any knowledge of their status AT ALL. SchmuckyTheCat 16:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

• I did not proceed to merge the two pages entirely, nor did I intend to cheat readers on the presentation of countries. It has been a de facto convention that the term "countries" include non-sovereign ones with lists of countries, and I took it for granted. To repeat myself, this is not the only list of countries, not even a minority, on wikipedia to include non-sovereign States. Visit category:Lists of countries and everyone can tell.
• After the past few months I have joined Wikipedia, I have been amazed by Huaiwei's long-term effort in editing a large number of articles and categories, trying her/his best to advance through his hidden agenda.
• However I am always assuming good faith, and it is not necessarily for anyone to be affected by my opinion on any particular contributors. I have been trying all my best to reach a resolution with Huaiwei, and the long debate on her/her personal discussion page had indeed avoided some revert wars over that period (ironically by exhausting the time and the mind of both of us). I have now planned to retreat, as long as the issue can be addressed by a peaceful, fair and just RfC, or an arbitration. — Instantnood 18:13, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• No you did not merge the two articles, but this very statement of yours probably cements what I have been suspecting. So are you going to fault Sjorford for doing the merging now? You can keep claiming innocence and portray yourself as someone willing to come to a compromise, and even as a victim of "abusive editing" by us, but lets get the facts straight. If people are interested enough, they can always check your history of edits and the way you participate in discussions here to form their own opinions. Someone who is willing to ignore a nuetral 3rd party and an administrators' efforts to come up with a compromise as recently as a few days ago hardly counts as someone who is a "victim", wont you think so?
• My edits are for all to see. Go right ahead and check all of them. My obvious agenda here is to help build up Singapore-related content. It is hidden? I dont think so. Is this wrong? I dont think so either. Meanwhile, is it just an irony, that "Someone" seems to be trailing every single one of my edits, and trying to replicate what I have done for my city/country with corrsponding articles/categories for his own city/territory? I dont think that is "wrong" either, but it does seem to speak volumes on the maturity level of that "Someone" here?
• Sweet words. If I were new to this site, I would be thinking you need a nice pat on the head and a bowl of warm soup for consolation. As I say...action speaks louder than words. Your claims of "retreating" only came about because I directly complained your controversial edits to admins...and not simply because of your "willingness to come to a compromise". Your "withdrawal" seems to be suggesting that my complains are justified, I suppose?--Huaiwei 12:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• There are always principles that one wouldn't give up, and there are bottomlines.
• Articles and categories are very often built up by replicating those of other countries, and I am pretty sure you did it in the same way in some of your recent creations, including some from Hong Kong.
• I have brought the disputed issues between you and me to RfC, and will probably bring it to arbitration when it is necessary.
• " Your "withdrawal" seems to be suggesting that my complains are justified, I suppose? " - Don't assume yourself to be the winner when other people cannot tolerate anymore.
• Last but not least, please show us that you have the intention to have all these disputes over in a peaceful and fair manner. — Instantnood 12:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • You speak of principles. Just recognise the fact that you arent the only one with pinciples which they will never depart from. The idea of compromise is for both sides to give up on these principles to a level which both are willing to sacrifice, and not to get the other party to agree to your viewpoint through any means possible, including the unethical. If you keep talking about "principles" you cannot give up on, then I can hardly see how it fits into the self-created myths concerning your "compromising" behavior.
  • As I said, I didnt find the replicating of articles and categories an issue to mention, did I? So could you explain why you find reason to comment over my editing habits? What do you think was worthy for comment here? I do thou over another issue. May I know why are you looking through the contribution lists of those you have major disagreements with for the past weeks on end? Checking on our edits to catch us the moment we do something you dont like? Now if I actually bother to do the same thing with you, I would have discovered long ago all the seemingly "minor edits" you have been inflicting all over which are actually highly controversial!
  • Where's the RfC?
  • Winner? Yeah actually, I notice you seem to think that when you make your edits and no one notices, then you seem to think you are the "winner" of some sort. For some reason, I cannot find faults with them if I see them belatedly. Why do you seem to take this site as thou it is some kind of game whereby there are winners and losers?
  • The same applies to you, of coz. Pretending that you are willing to compromise, yet doing the same disputed edits in other pages is hardly what I would call a genuine and sincere desire to create a more peaceful and sensible pleace to contribute in!--Huaiwei 15:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I go away for a week and a half, and this bullshit is still going on? Jesus Christ, Instantnood. 1) There are no conventions governing the consistency of lists regarding this issue. 2) They aren't countries. 3) And you have an annoyingly crazy penchant for taking things out of context. (i.e. my comment regarding "Rome wasn't built in a day" for one). Stop the baseless rhetoric and get over yourself. —ExplorerCDT 05:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Protecting the page: Dispute RE: Non-Countries on the List

Statement by ExplorerCDT

I have removed mentions of dependant territories. Up until now, the enumerations regarding Gibraltar and Macao have been reverted by User:Instantnood who has persisted in being a pedantic annoyance, while my deletion of Hong Kong has been ignored.

Netherlands Antilles, Guantanamo, Macao and Gibraltar are not countries. Two are navy bases (Gibraltar and Gitmo), Netherlands Antilles are the Caribbean colonial possessions of the Netherlands formerly under control of the Dutch West India Company (whose assets reverted to the Dutch crown), Macao and Hong Kong are Special Autonomous Regions but have NEVER been countries. Also, to title this as a list of countries bordering only one country is misleading, as several examples are of territory that only borders one other country while the rest of the country's possessions in fact border several independent states. The use of US and Cuba bordering at Gitmo ignores the fact that the US also borders Canada, Mexico, etc. which constitutes more than one bordering country, or that France (which borders Spain, Andorra, Germany, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Belgium, and Italy on the map of Europe) some how only borders the Netherlands (which borders Belgium and Germany on the map of Europe) at St. Martin in the Caribbean. Utterly misleading and completely inaccurate.

Instantnood's attempts to revert edits by myself and SimonP made with the intent for accuracy resulted in this protection of the page until a proper, accurate and sensible resolution is made. —ExplorerCDT 21:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Statement by Instantnood

ExplorerCDT cited wrong evidence to back his arguments. The setting of this list to include non-sovereign states is described and illustrated by the notice on the top of the page. It is a practice of several lists of countries across Wikipedia. The same treatment should applied regarding all these lists, and this list shall be no exception.

Only the entities listed next to the bullets are bordering one entity. The one listed on the right hand side is the entity with which it shares its border.

ExplorerCDT's attempts to modify the page with wrong evidence shall be reverted, and the original state of the article should be restored. This page is now added the {{protected}} with the state prior to his modifications. — Instantnood 22:31 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

---

Discussions

They aren't countries. Unless they declared independence within the last time I watched the news (three hours ago), they are not countries. You even admit that fact. Either change the title, or leave them out. Your second paragraph just shows that the page is inaccurate and misleading. Finally, I put up the protected tag, with my version of the page, your reversions will be reverted until someone comes around and makes that protection work. —ExplorerCDT 22:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems not to make sense for territories to be included, when the article title is at 'list of countries...'. I agree with ExplorerCDT that Gibraltar (much more than just a naval base by the way), Macao etc should not be included. Incidentally, the page claims to be protected but isn't - I see it's been listed at requests for protection though, so presumably it will be protected shortly. Worldtraveller 22:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They aren't sovereign states, but the same treatment should applies to all lists of countries with the same setting. The notice at the top of the page already tells this list includes not only sovereign states, without any confusions. — Instantnood 22:56 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

• I'd agree that all the lists should be treated as such, but then again, Rome wasn't built in a day. Notice or not, the article is misleading and inaccurate, and is only one of a myriad of articles needing correction. Thus, if you feel this is a battle that should start here, let's start here and rush the barricades with me, or you can just shut up, let my changes stand, and stop being an ass. —ExplorerCDT 04:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was not under the impression that summary deletion of disputed content was the right way to go about things. Rather, the matter should have been taken up on the talk page prior to unilateral removal.

Furthermore, since the article plainly states what it includes in the list, which it does: The list includes dependent territories and some de facto independent disputed or occupied areas and unrecognised countries., then there is no inaccuracy. Your complaint is only with the title. But List of countries and dependent territories which only border one other country or dependent territory is quite a mouthful, don't you think? Regardless, it is very conventional for dependent territories, especially organized ones, to be treated as "countries" in most conventional settings. Especially Hong Kong, which for example has its own country codes.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 22:08, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Read below, it didn't originally include them. SchmuckyTheCat 22:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed. The same person who systemetically got the non-country entities added to this listing (which once was not under any debate at all with regards to its content listing since it only comprised of independent countries) was the same person who wrote that paragraph. Perhaps we should simply revert this list back to its former state, and we wont need to bother changing the title at all anymore, or having a need to write any "disclaimers" which simply causes more confusion than it needs to.--Huaiwei 05:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To repeat myself, I copied those sentences from another similar list of countries. I did not acknowledge this list exist before I create one. The two lists were not merged by me. — Instantnood 07:53, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)