Talk:Gallery of sovereign state flags/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

There's a bit of talk comparing this page with Gallery of national flags on Talk:Gallery of national flags. Scurra 19:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Archive 1 Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

---

The National Flag of Quebec

I am shocked, shocked and saddened by the fact that the National Flag of Quebec was ripped from this page for a second time. I am not sure whether this was done because of disrespect or ignorance. This flag has every right to be presented here with dignity. I will defend that position, as I would for any nation.

It is quite difficult to defend non-sovereign nations with sociological arguments, so I will mostly show facts of recognition. Beforehand, I will point out the definition of a nation according to the United Nations.

"A group of experts meeting under the auspices of the United Nations has identified seven objective indicia of peoplehood [...]:

1. A common historical tradition.
2. Racial or ethnic identity.
3. Cultural homogeneity.
4. Linguistic unity.
5. Religious or ideological affinity.
6. Territorial connection.
7. Common economic life.

Peoplehood also necessarily includes subjective aspects which are not readily, if at all, subject to proof. Thus, a people combines objective characteristics describing a group's common historical, ethnic, cultural, religious or other background, with the subjective consciousness that the group has a common identity." [1]

Quebec harbors all of these caracteristics.

Now, for the hard facts... the Flag of Quebec is officially called Le drapeau national du Québec (the National Flag of Quebec) and the national emblem by the government of Quebec. On this, please refer to these pages: [2], [3] & [4]. It has been decreeted by... hum, by the National Assembly of Quebec, the parliament of Quebec. National, that word again... It is the custom to display it on what is officially called, since 1977, the... Quebec National Holiday... that pesky term once again. As a matter of fact, Quebec has a National Library, a National Capital (Quebec City), a state decoration called the National Order of Quebec, a National Museum of Fine Arts, a National School of Police, a National motto (Je me souviens, meaning "I remember")... etc. etc. All of these term uses are *Official*. Well well...

Furthermore, I am flabbergasted by the fact that the addition of entities like the Basque Country, Catalonia, Scotland or Wales (other nations without fully sovereign states) did not ruffle anyone's feathers enough to warrant a unilateral removal, but the adding of Quebec did. Are there grades? Superior and inferior nations? Or are all nations indeed equal? I knew many saw non-sovereign nations as inferior, sadly, but a hierarchy between non-sovereign nations is even more bizarre and anti-equalitarian. Quebec even has a national language, Quebec French, an aspect sadly not fully harbored anymore by Scotland or Wales. Quebec was, like Scotland and Wales, conquered by military force, and united to the British Empire by the very same kind of Act of Union as Scotland, Wales and Ireland (the Act of Union of 1536 for the Welsh; the Act of Union of 1707 for the Scots; the Act of Union of 1800 for the Irish; the Act of Union of 1840 for the Quebecers). The will to be recognized officially by the international community might be considered a sign of nationhood since it proves a national conciousness. On this aspect, Quebec has an unassailable position. Of all these people mentioned above, (and probably of most non-sovereign peoples in the world), the Quebec people has the greatest will to obtain this recognition that comes with national sovereignty (between 47% and 50% according to recent polls) and plans to obtain it shortly are put in motion by a large group of citizens.

Scotland was not conquered by military force, and united to the British Empire (any more than England was). Its Parliament along with the English Parliament passed the Act of Union 1707. Scotland could not have united with the "British Empire" because it was that act which created Great Britain as a political entity. The British Empire was a much a Scottish creation as an English one. The two kingdoms had already shared a monarch for 100 years (less decade of the Interregnum starting with James VI of Scotland. Philip Baird Shearer 02:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Finally, the nationhood of Quebec is widely acknowledged. From the interior, a vast majority of Quebec citizens acklowledges it (from all political sides). The expression Le pays (The Country) is even often used to refer to Quebec. This is the term used in the unofficial... National Anthem of Quebec, Gens du pays. All parties represented in the National Assembly of Quebec defend this belief. In 2003, a motion was presented to the National Assembly of Quebec declaring that Quebec forms a nation. How much votes did it get? 40%? 70%? Nope. It got 100%, every single vote from every single Member of Parliament. From the exterior, while things are far from perfect, during the last Canadian federal campaign in 2004 three of the four major party leaders running have stated that there was, in fact, a Quebec Nation (Jack Layton (refer to [5]), Stephen Harper (refer to [6]) & Gilles Duceppe (refer to [7])). The fourth, Paul Martin, neither acknowleged it or denied it. On the international stage, many could be brought to add to the heavy proof. I will remind you of the mythical historical figure of French President Charles de Gaulle, who studied Quebec for decades and spoke of the Quebec peoplehood, nationhood; and finally shouted his famous Vive le Québec Libre (meaning "Long live Free Quebec") rally cry for independence in Montreal back in 1967, comparing Quebec to France and its own past national struggles.

Because of this massive, solid list arguments and facts, I think the removal of Quebec from the List of national Flags cannot be justified. --Liberlogos 06:25, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

RE: QUÉBEC FLAG

Well, If Québec's national flag were to be included, it would only be fair to include all the Canadian Provincial Flags, or all the US State Flags. If Québec answers to a higher governing authority, then it shouldn't be included on this page (The EU, UN, etc. are a special cases, they are more of a loose affiliation, not like in a federation such as Canada).

Not to mention those areas, but we have to add various others. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RE: QUÉBEC FLAG

This is not the forum for a separatist like yourself to declare that the province I live in is in fact a sovereign country. I am a Canadian, and as such will be represented by the National Flag of Canada.

Flag of Palestine

Please note this is a list of flags of independent states. "Palestine" is not an independent state. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Palestine is an independent state, currently under military occupation by the Jews. --Islamist 13:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Though Islamist's comment above shows his bigoted mindset, there's a lot to be said for his argument. I'd give Palestine the same consideration as American references generally gave Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia while they were occupied by the Soviet Union. There is some difference, in that Palestine has never been an independent nation (as opposed to the Baltic states' situation). I suggest we let the flag remain; Palestine functions in all ways as an occupied independent state, and the lack of formal recognition by the Western nations is a political issue, not a function of the actual nature of the nation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me but Israel is the Jewish state occupying Palestine and Jayjg insists that Jews are a nationality, so what is bigoted about stating the truth? --Islamist 02:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It has never been an independent state, and still is not one. It has no currency (and never has), has no legally defined borders, and does not sit as an independent state in the U.N. Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were at least independent at some point before being annexed by the Soviet Union. We don't have Kurdistan here either, since it is not and independent state. Nor do we have Tibet, though it once was independent, and is currently occupied by China. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, it has membership in international organizations like the Arab League and I believe it participates with its own athletes in the Olympics. Certainly it has atleast as much recognition as Western Sahara has -- and probably more. Kurdistan and Tibet on the other hand do not have any recognition by international organizations. Aris Katsaris 21:30, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

It still doesn't have sovereignty, defined borders, a monetary system, etc. Most tellingly, the Palestinian Authority has not declared an independent Palestinian state (though they have threatened to do so). Why would they have to threaten to declare independence if they are already independent? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's no single definition of "sovereignty" as far as I'm aware, and a number of undisputed independent states don't have monetary systems of their own. Aris Katsaris 05:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

• The PA doesn't need to declare an independent state; the predecessor of the PA, the PNC, did so in 1988, and the state is recognized by some two-thirds of the world's countries, according to our own article. Independent, occupied. What does it cost us to allow a modicum of dignity? It's not like we're including the Hamas battle flag or something of that sort. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why was it a big deal when the P.A. threatened to declare independence in 2000, if they had no need to do so based on the PNC's earlier declaration? I think Wikipedia should strive to be as factual as possible; I don't think its goal is to "allow a modicum of dignity" to non-independent states; that sounds like a social or political goal. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Palestine is a national entity recognized by most of the world. Their national flag should be available on this list of national flags. --Islamist 02:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rather than making bald assertions, why don't you actually try to answer the question? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Palestine flag" gets 6,720 Google hits. That should tell you something. (I am using the same bald assertions and Google logic that you use to declare jews a nationality). --Islamist 02:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kurds have a flag too; you'll find in in the Kurdistan article. So does Quebec. None of them are independent countries. Now answer the question please. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was a big deal because the state would include Jerusalem and everyone knows that would irritate people like you. --Islamist 02:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Didn't the original declaration also include Jerusalem? And please avoid personal comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is weak. If it was a "big deal" is in the eye of the beholder. Those hostile to Palestinian sovereign rights would be upset. It makes no difference to the issue at hand. What should be clarified is the definition of national flag and the criteria for inclusion here. If it is UN membership, fine, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara are out. If it is formal recognition by the world community, as in UN observer status or seat on the Arab League, fine Palestine is in. You don't want personal issues editor biases to be considered but in honesty, what is your opposition based on if not your personal animus to Arabs and your ethnic identification with Israel and the "Jewish Nation"? --Islamist 03:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am going to strongly encourage you to stop making personal attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm kinda tempted to VfD this entire article as intrinsically POV -- and unnecessary. Perhaps instead we should have a page full of flags of nations recognized by the UN, in which case there is no room for POV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆
  • I second this proposal; such an approach would be much more objective. --Bletch 02:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I third it; it would stop people from trying to unilaterally change the whole definition of the page merely to include their favorite flag. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is User:Jpgordon engaging in abusive edit summaries with editors who agree with him and then reverting himself twice in one day? see [8] and [9] --Islamist 02:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please focus on article content, not other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those are edits to the article, in case you didn't notice. Edits to the article are content. I am asking for an explanation for the edits. --Islamist 02:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I reverted my own change because I thought better of it, for the reasons I stated at the very beginning of this section. Intelligent, reasonable people have the ability to reconsider their actions and change their minds if they decided they acted incorrectly or hastily. Next question? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scotland has defined borders, a history of independence, and even its own parliament, yet it has been excluded from this page. The reason, of course, was that it is not an independent country. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scotland is not excluded, it is part of the UK. --Islamist 03:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean it is not excluded? I don't see its flag here. Oh, did I mention it has it's own legal system as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alabama does too and I don't see it's flag either. Scotland is part of the UK and the UK flag is listed. Go back to square one. --Islamist 03:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scotland is a country and nation in a union with England and Wales, just as the France is a country and nation in a union with many other European Union nations. You still haven't defined how "Palestine" is more independent than Scotland, which at least has a history of being an independent country. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority is a member of international organizations, and has embassies, just like France. Scotland and Alabama don't have embassies anywhere, because foreign relationship are exclusive competences of the UK and USA respectively. Is that simple enough a distinction? To say that that Scotland is in "union" with England and Wales just as France is in union with other EU nations is dishonest debating in the extreme. Aris Katsaris 05:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I was nodding along with Jay up to that point! Just in case he isn't clear, France is a sovereign nation that is in an association with other sovereign nations. Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom. It's not a "country" in any real sense. You could certainly argue that it is a nation but the analogy with Alabama is far closer than the one with France, although Scotland is not federated with England and Wales. Grace Note 14:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The PLO created "embassies" all over the world precisely for the purpose of asserting an independence which they did not have by any other measures. And what is "dishonest debating in the extreme" is to pick and choose the indicators by which your own favoured group is an "independent state" (like embassies), and then insist that those are the only important ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External representation (i.e the right to have participation in international organizations, make treaties, establish embassies) is the one primary means of determining the independence or not of any entity, because that's the *external* face of the entity. The purpose that the PLO created embassies is unimportant. Whether other nations accepted these embassies however is kinda crucial in determining whether these countries recognize its statehood or not however. Having a monetary system of their own on the other hand has never been a criterion for independence on the other hand. Aris Katsaris 14:24, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

However, the embassies are meaningless political theatre; they can't negotiate treaties of any sort, and one doesn't need to have an embassy (or be an independent state) to participate in international organizations. Conversely, independent states can be excluded from international organizations. Calling something an "embassy" that has none of the capabilities of a real embassy is like, well, calling something an "independent state" when it has none of the capabilities of an independent state. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===>Not just states The Sovereign Military Order of Malta has diplomatic representation with 90 states, and the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as represetned by the ICRC and IFRCS are subject to international law. These entities are not states, and so it is not necessary that Palestine be a state simply because it has embassies or is an entity in international relations. Justin (koavf) 19:29, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Two germane points to consider

===>Consider:

1.) In common parlance, not political science jargon, the terms "nation" and "country" typically mean what political scientists call a "state." If an average user typed in "Gallery of state flags" they would typically expect to see the administrative districts of the United States of America (Alabama, Alaska, and so on), not Afghanistan, Albania, and so on. We are not going to have flags for all nations here since not all nations have flags, and there are an innumerable amount of nations around the world.

2.) One key difference between Palestine and the ROC and SADR is that the former has devolved authority from an irrefutable state - Israel - whereas the latter two have authority to administer territory in spite of the objections of the PRC and Morocco. This makes it essentially similar to the situation of Scotland and Wales in the United Kingdom, and essentially different than the two political entities I just mentioned. Furthermore, Palestine is recognized by diplomatic ties or consulates in 93 states, a minority of states, not a "majority" as User:Islamist claimed.

False. 93 states is most of the world. The UN only has 195 members and the total population of those states not recognizing Palestine is the monority. --Islamist 03:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's still a minority of states. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===>Not "false" at all: Since Palestine is not recognized by India or China, it can't have a majority of the world's people with a minority of states. And there are 194 states: 191 UN members, Holy See, Taiwan, and Western Sahara Justin (koavf) 03:49, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nuh-huh. Palestine is indeed recognized by India. China too. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My conclusion: Since Palestine is not a state in as much as it does not administer its own territory (however you happen to define that territory), I would not consider it appropriate for this list. That having been said, I can understand why there could be a legitimate argument in favor of putting it here. If someone wants to advance a cogent, non-biased argument that addresses the objections made to your position, I'd be happy to read it.

Postscript: To claim that Palestine is already a state, in a way, undermines the arguments advanced by Palestinian sympathizers. One of the key sources of struggle and conflict is the idea that the Palestinian people do not have a state, and deserve one. The irony of simultaneous being in favor of the creation of a Palestinian state, and believing that such a state already exists shouldn't be lost on us. Justin (koavf) 03:27, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

===>Follow-up: Please also consider that not all states are nations and not all nations are states. If this included nations, such as the Lakota or Sami, it would exclude the United States of America, as it is not composed of a single nation. This would make this list unintelligible and useless to the average user. It would not meet their expectations, or provide them with the information that they would typically expect or require from this article. Justin (koavf) 03:34, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's not so hard to understand. Palestine is an independent state that is currently occupied by Zionist Jews. --Islamist 03:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===>The discussion: Your post does not address the issues that I raised. If you argument is too weak to counter them, it is too weak to be accepted. If your argument is strong enough to counter them, please do. Justin (koavf) 03:52, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

From what I've seen, bald assertions are about the best you can expect. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point has already been made: the State of Palestine is recognized by most of the world. It is not for Wikipedia to tell the many countries that recognize Palestine as a nation-state that it isn't one. A notice that its statehood (like that of the Western Sahara, listed here) is disputed might be appropriate; simply omitting it is POV. - Mustafaa 05:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The counter-point has also been made that if the declaration of the State of Palestine actually meant anything, then the notion that the P.A. was going to declare an independent state of Palestine in 2000 wouldn't have created such an uproar. Why does an independent state need to declare that it is an independent state?[10] Jayjg ^(talk) 13:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, have you heard of Taiwan, and how there's a lot of uproar about that independent state also declaring itself independent? Would you mind explaining your opinion on the inclusion of Taiwan's flag here? On my part I can't imagine *any* set of criteria of either statehood or independence that would include both Western Sahara and Taiwan, but exclude the Palestinian state. Aris Katsaris 14:48, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The simple fact that Taiwan controls its own territory, and has done so for over 50 years, including conducting foreign relations, joint military exercises, international trade agreements, etc., would seem quite enough to differentiate Taiwan from "Palestine" and the Western Sahara. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===>Response to Aris: I just listed a criterion that differentiates Western Sahara from Palestine: the former exercises its own administration, and the latter has devolved authority from a state. Justin (koavf) 15:58, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Western Sahara's is a government-in-exile: it administers no part of its own territory. As for the "devolved authority from a state", I thought the Palestinian authority was created NOT as the result of purely Israeli political processes, but as the result of a treaty between two entities (the Oslo accords). So I don't see your "devolved authority from a state" as being accurate, especially given how Israel doesn't claim as part of its own sovereign territory the areas which Palestinian Authority administers. Aris Katsaris 23:26, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

===>Not true. The claim that the SADR administers no part of its territory is flat-out not true. It administers the area east and south of the berm (in addition to the refugee camps in Tindouf, Algeria, over which it does not claim sovereignty). Even if the PA was created due to the negotiated result of two entities, that makes it no different than the devolved authority of the Scottish Parliament. An even better example is the creation of the Northern Ireland Parliament - it was created as a political solution between a state (the UK) and a non-self-governing entity/terrorist organization (Sinn Fein/IRA). (The fact that this legislative body's actions have been suspended is irrelevant - the issue at hand is that it was created vis-a-vis a state and a non-sovereign entity). Even if Israel doesn't claim sovereignty over that area, the PA's authority to administer it still comes from Israel withdrawing its own administration in the area - this is the devolution of power. A similar situation existed with many dependencies - take, for instance, Hong Kong. The individuals living there were denied both British and Chinese citizenship, and the UK did not claim sovereignty over the territory, as it had a lease that expired after a century, but it administered the territory there without claiming sovereignty or citizenship rights. After the UK withdrew its administration, the sovereignty of the PRC was recognized over the territory, and the inhabitants given formal citizenship rights. Justin (koavf) 00:33, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• I still think that Palestine is not a state (yet) and that it should not be included in this category for that reason. If the Palestine flag needs to be added anywhere, it should be at the List of flags or the gallery of non-sovereign nations (the same place we put States, Provinces, HK SAR, UK dependencies like Scotland). Zscout370 19:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scotland is not a UK dependency nor is it a Crown dependency. It is most certainly not a subnational entity because the United Kingdom is a sovereign state not a nation state. Scotland is a country and a nation. I think that some people get confused and equate sovereignty with nations, because in the case of many sovereignties the one is dependent on the other. EG the United States is a sovereign nation. But in the case of the United Kingdom, it is a kingdom so they are not mixed up, there is a sovereign is the person of the Queen (with her own government (see HMG)) and there are nations but the two concepts are separate. Philip Baird Shearer 19:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

An idea in the form of a substitute

Seems to me this article really isn't necessary. The category system is perfect for this sort of thing. Category pages containing images (for example, Category:National flag images) provide readable thumbnails of their members. So, for example, we could have Category:Flags/UN members and Category:Flags/Occupied nations and people. That would make this entire discussion moot -- we don't need an imprecise category like "national flags. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, except for the huge fights that would break out over which territories actually belonged in the latter category. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Solution: Section of "disputed statehood"

Create a "disputed statehood" section, that would be saying "the following flags belong to countries whose independence and statehood is a matter of significant dispute and their status of recognition by the international community is mixed."

The flags that should go under there should be Western Sahara (member of African Union), Taiwan (recognized by 25 nations I believe), Palestinian Authority (recognized by 60-70 nations or something).

Is that a decent enough compromise?

An alternate solution would be to not have a separate section, but make a poll that will decide once and for all whether the countries fitting the above definition should be in or out. Either way we can't possibly justify Western Sahara but not allow the Palestinian flag. Aris Katsaris 05:50, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a very good solution. I mean, what qualifies as disuputed statehood? there are many levels of it. Do we add Tamil or Kurdistan? Colombia is half controlled by FARC isn't it? They may not all be different issues but this just leads to an argument over "what is disputed statehood" and you have no problems fixed. gren 19:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Status of recognition by the international community is mixed" seems to me more specific than you give it credit for. Is there *any* nation that recognizes an independent Tamil homeland? Is there *any* nation that recognizes an independent Kurdistan? Is there any nation that recognizes FARC as the legitimate government of Colombia? If the answer to all of the above is "no" then you've strengthened my argument with these examples, not weakened it. Aris Katsaris 21:27, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Which specific flags would you put in that section? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just as I mentioned a couple paragraphs above: Western Sahara, Taiwan, Palestine. These three have dozens of nations that recognize them, and dozens of nations that *don't* recognize them. Aris Katsaris 22:59, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Any others, or is that it? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You tell me. Are you playing a game? Because I'm not, I'm honestly trying to offer a possible solution. These are the ones that I currently think fit the criteria I set out. If you have any others in mind, do please us let us know.Aris Katsaris 01:41, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

===>TRNC I'd imagine that people would soon lobby for the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, followed by Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abhkazia, Transnistria, and other break-away republics in short order. Justin (koavf) 00:37, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I considered TRN Cyprus myself, but I think we can still hold a reasonable boundary between "recognized by only one other country" and "recognized by dozens of countries". Aris Katsaris 01:41, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

So what are the boundaries, then? Recognition by how many countries? At least two? At least five? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming that's a serious question. Any choice will be arbitrary, we know that. There's no internationally agreed criteria for what makes an "independent state". If there were, we'd cite them and be done with it. I don't think recognition by two countries would do it because didn't Aris suggest that there should be significant dispute over their independence. Why not say we include them if five countries have recognised them, with at least one of those countries being a permanent member of the security council? We make a footnote to the criterion in any case, and we are not saying anything pro or anti any of them. Grace Note 06:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note, I don't like elevating the UN's Security Council to any kind of authoritative source. After all the permanent members of the security council are nothing but a listing of the power balance as it stood after World War II -- UK or France isn't any more relevant today than Germany or Japan are.

And Jayjg, are you ever going to make an actual contribution, or are you just going to ask questions? I have no problem whether the boundary is set at 1, at 2, at 10, or at 50, as long as we state the number. If you wish, we can set the limit at 2, with a removal of the word "significant". That encourages no single country's unsupported imperialism. (i.e. taking a piece of neighbouring land, and claiming it an independent nation, without support from any other nation). Aris Katsaris 04:29, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Aris, I have contributed quite significantly to this discussion, as the many comments on this Talk: page show. I am now trying to fully explore your suggested solution, to see exactly what the parameters and implications of it are. So far, it seems a pretty fuzzy and arbitrary concept, which is why I'd like to understand it better. Personally I think a list of flags of nations which are members of the U.N. is far less controversial, but I'm exploring alternatives. Would countries recognized by at least 1 other country be represented anywhere on this page? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Would countries recognized by at least 1 other country be represented anywhere on this page?" See, I think this feels like a one-sided interview that I entered, when I was wishing for a discussion instead where I would hear your own opinions also. A page about UN flags are fine, but it has little-to-nothing to do with a page on national flags, since the existence of sovereign nations preexisted the UN: since I don't even much like the UN, I disagree with equating statehood with participation in the UN. Fuzzy and arbitrary? Far less fuzzy and arbitrary than the current utter lack of criteria that currently dominates this page, so unless I hear *actual* objections to my suggestion, (not just repetitious questions that I feel I've answered five times already) I'm gonna make edits tomorrow to the direction I suggested.Aris Katsaris 18:02, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm asking questions because I want to fully understand what you think this page should look like, and your rationale for it. I personally have no trouble identifying which states are actual nations and which are not, but I only use logical criteria, like controlling your own territory for a significant period of time, and being a member of the U.N. Since you're proposing to add dubious nations to the mix, I need to understand your own criteria. Moving on, if you're going to insist on have a disputed statehood section, what will be the criteria be for "undisputed" states? There has to be something; I suggest U.N. membership. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===>Security Council The irony of the Security Council litmus test is that there are two rival governments of China, with both having recogniztion from some states. Justin (koavf) 16:54, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Was that "compromise" a joke?

There is no dispute as to whether Israel is an independent state; there is a great dispute as to whether "Palestine" is. Please do not make further attempts this kind of unilateral "even-handedness" which, in actuality, is nonsensical. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Jayjg, be honest with me here. Did this debate really start once Islamist started to add the flag with his other pro-Arab vandalism to this page and to Wikipedia itself? Zscout370 19:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, this whole debate started when Islamist tried adding the flag to this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Before then, was there some type of debate like this before on the Palestine flag? Zscout370 20:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Not that I'm aware of; I don't see any on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===>Really two conversations: This is also being discussed on the Talk page for Talk:Gallery of national flags, too. It has been discussed there recently and in the past also. Justin (koavf) 22:03, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• I was told to bring it (the conversation) here, since more people seem to talk on here than on the Gallery page. Zscout370 23:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, Levelcheck did it again, put "Israel" in as a "disputed nation". Did you see any talk: here about Israel being disputed, Levelcheck? No, you didn't. The talk: here is about whether or not "Palestine" belongs on the page. Why don't you join the discussion, rather than implementing unilateral changes to the page. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Either both Taiwan and Palestine should be listed, or neither should be. Neither has a seat on the UN, but both claim to be independent nations, and in both cases that claim is challenged by a colonial occupier (China and Israel respectively). Israel is also a disputed nation because of the tremendous number of UN resolutions related to its existence and borders. LevelCheck 19:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, when there's a dispute over which flag to use, how do we decide? Should the Iraqi flag be the US-imposed flag that many Iraqis claim to be imperialism, or should it be the original flag before the US regime change? LevelCheck 19:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yay, you're finally here; that's great. Now please read through the thorough discussion of the topic above, so that we don't have to repeat the various arguments on both sides, or re-explore potential solutions. Oh, and there are no U.N. resolutions regarding Israel's existence, except the original one which said it should exist; Israel is a full member of the U.N., and has been for almost 60 years. And finally, highly POV language like "colonial occupier" is neither accurate nor helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Israel is a nation that belongs to the UN and is recognized by many nations. Taiwan is a nation, since it is running its own land in spite of what China is doing. Palestine, on the other hand, only has authority when Israel gives it to them. If Israel does not let the PA do anything, then the PA is stuck. As what Jayig said, bring any disputes here before making anything happen on the article page. Zscout370 20:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course Israel's statehood is disputed. Do I really need to find a list of the nations that do not recognize it? But whatever. The point is that Palestine clearly does belong here, as established above by Aris Katsaris. - Mustafaa 20:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• There are many nations that do not recognize Taiwan, the PA, Somalia, Western Saharah and if we have a 2/3 threshold, we will be opening a pandora's box that should not have been opened. Zscout370 20:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

I suggest dividing things into three groups:

1. Non-states: Organizations with no territorial claims, or that are recognized by fewer than five countries. These don't have entries on the page.
2. Disputed states: Organizations with territorial claims, that are recognized by at least five countries, but fewer than two-thirds. These have entries in a separate section of the page.
3. Non-disputed states: Organizations with territorial claims, that are recognized by at least two-thirds of all countries. These have entries in the main section of the page.

--Carnildo 20:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The first topic can be stuck at a list of sub-national/non-sovereign nations. We have three disputed states (ROC, SADA and Palestine) amd the rest will be in the main category. Though we still need to figure out about governments in exile (eg Tibet and Somalia). Zscout370 20:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those are covered by #2: Does the government-in-exile claim territory, and how many countries is it recognized by? --Carnildo 21:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Zscout370 21:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two thirds of what countries? Countries in the U.N.? If a disputed country recognizes another disputed country, does that count? Personally I think we should have one section for countries which are full members of the U.N., and another for countries which are recognized by at least one other U.N. member. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I second the idea suggested by Jayjg. Zscout370 23:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I don't think my system leads to any ambiguous cases right now, but things could change in the future. --Carnildo 00:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most flag companies have it where the UN nations are on a list, and non/former UN members are on the other. I believe we can do that with no problems. Zscout370 00:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I liked the 'full UN member' and 'reconized by at least one full UN member' simply because it seems that critera would be much much easier to determin. If a consensus can be reached on this one then that is good. The whole problem assuming "well people just know from the title what belongs here", which leads to POV fights. This suggestion is better than nothing, but in the case of a dispute is there an offical source to see what countries reconize what other countries? Do all countrys even bother with such lists? DO they have to exchange embasadors? Anyway I like the UN based solutions best, but any clear rule that people can agree on will do. Dalf | Talk 00:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===>A possible solution: I suppose the most equitable, and ultimately, most useful for enquiring readers, solution is this: one table that has the 191 UN members + Vatican in alphabetical order, and then a second with: Palestine, Taiwan (ROC), and Western Sahara (SADR), with all the appropriate footnotes, links, and what have you. My only problem with the UN-state recognition plan is that it would include "Northern Cyprus" (TRNC), which is frankly, appalling and ridiculous to me. Justin (koavf) 03:05, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm Greek and nonetheless I say that if that's the only reason for not accepting the scheme, it'd be better to include TRN Cyprus instead. Our personal specific distastes shouldn't play a role in what we include or don't accept wikipedia. On my part I don't very much like the use of UN as a criterion, but I couldn't learn to live with it. Aris Katsaris 13:29, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• With the recent elections in TRNC, there could be a possibility of having just one Cyprus in the next few years. However, I still think my suggestion (two tables: UN members and one of non/former Members) would work. Zscout370 12:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The referendum for reunification was successful in the Turkish-Cypriot side and failed in the Greek-Cypriot one -- as such, a change in the leadership of the Greek Cypriot side would actually be more likely to help for reunification's purposes. Aris Katsaris 13:29, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

===>Response to Aris and Zscout Thanks for your input, but there are a couple of things that I would like clarified:

Zscout - I don't understand why we would have a section on former UN members. All of them are represented by successor states, and none of them exist anymore. The only state to leave the UN and continue its existence (to this day, no less) is Indonesia, who left for 18 months while Suharto (Sueharto) overthrew Sukarno's government. Also, you said that many states don't recognize Somalia, but I don't know of any. You may be confused with the factions of Somaliland, Puntland, and Jubaland.

Aris - I appreciate what you have to say, but I should elaborate on the TRNC. I agree that our personal politics shouldn't dictate the content, but I would be opposed to the TRNC for the simple fact that it is a puppet state created by Turkey, and is only recognized by them. If the U.S. were to invade Alberta, for instance, install a government there, and recognize it as sovereign, I would be opposed to giving that government any manner of recognition in any forum, including one as inconsequential as an online encyclopedia.

Again, thanks for your responses. I think that a section on non-recognized nations would make this list to unweildy as to be useful, and that content is already covered on other pages (even though I'm pro-Tibetan, and Papuan). Justin (koavf) 20:38, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC) Somalia Response: The US unrecognized Somalia after the incidents that cause mnay fine soldiers from my nation to parish in the UN relief efforts. And now, the Somalia government is located in Nigeria, since the country is run by war lords (almost like Afghanistan). The reason I said that some nations might not recognize Somalia anymore since its status as a nation is almost in doubt (in my pov). Zscout370 23:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Correction: the government in exile is located in Kenya, not Nigeria. My apologizes to all. Zscout370 23:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about a requirement of two UN members recognizing it? That'll get rid of puppet states, while still leaving governments-in-exile. --Carnildo 03:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would up the number by one and call it a deal. Zscout370

Well, I'm OK with one, but I think UN member recognition has to enter into it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Listing countries as "disputed" without explaining what the heck "disputed" is supposed to mean is ridiculous and POV. Are we to add both Koreas since each claims the others' territories? Do we also add the People's republic of China and Mongolia because the Republic of China legally claims their territories? I'm with Carnildo's suggestion, but we should probably stay consistent and use the same list presently at List of sovereign states and use the same endnotes, instead of creating separate unexplained sections.

And why are only the Republic of China and State of Palestine disputed, when Western Sahara (under occuptation) and Somalia (no functional government) are not? --Jiang 05:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Jiang. Let's go with List of sovereign states with endnotes but move this page to Flags of sovereign states or whatever, before someone starts thinking that "nations" are peoples not states, and argues for Scotland (you got me thinking, Jay!).Grace Note 07:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I also support this idea. If this goes through, I wish for the same changes to take effect on the Gallery of national flags too, either creating a new page or just ditching the gallery all together. Zscout370 11:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What are the criteria for "sovereignty"? What makes something an undisputed sovereign state vs. a disputed sovereign state? By the way, I agree about the Gallery of national flags, that should be deleted regardless. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, Jay, but the page we're referring to seems to be very careful and NPOV. We clearly can't accommodate both POVs in their raw state, so there needs to be a compromise. I think Palestine in, heavily caveated, works. I'm not willing to argue with you over whether it is, in fact, sovereign. I think it will ultimately come down to definitions. Let's try the middle way -- pick a definition of sovereignty that is inclusive and ensure that it is footnoted strongly enough to suit your POV. Can you get behind that, Jay? Grace Note 13:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to find something that was clear and undisputable; full membership in the U.N. for fully sovereign countries, and recognition by full U.N. members for other disputed states. I still don't see what the problem is with that, and I see all sorts of POV problems with anything less clear and undisputable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that. Did you look at the List of sovereign states page. It gives its upfront definition, which I for one could support, and then just gives the list, appropriately footnoted. I think we could happily echo that here. Its definitions were "UN member" plus Vatican and Taiwan; de facto states; and states that are recognised but not de facto sovereign. Israel is in the first group (without needing to be named or listed) and Palestine in the third.Grace Note 23:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it means by a "defined territory"; how is a territory "defined"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jay, that's a good question. I don't think it was intended as a sinister imposition against Israel or other states that are involved in disputes over territory. It simply means that you can say what the territory is. IOW, there is some territory, X, that the state, Y, attaches itself too. Actually, you should probably read the Montevideo Convention carefully; it made clear that recognition was irrelevant to statehood. Of course, not everyone agrees that it is a good description of statehood! But I think that in the case of Palestine, there is certainly a "defined territory" that the state of Palestine claims and a defined territory that the state of Israel claims (or consists of, if you like). Saying that does not endorse either claim; it simply recognises that the claim exists. Grace Note 02:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My issue here is that I'm trying to look for something ironclad; something which cannot be disputed via constant edit wars. As soon as you start introducting ill-defined terms to define what is a "nation" or "sovereign state", the fight starts all over again on the new page. That is why I have consistently favoured full U.N. membership for undisputed states, with recognition by full U.N. members for the disputed states; not only is that a reasonable definition, but it is undisputable as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your issue. It is problematic though because, for instance, the Holy See is a sovereign state but is not a full member of the UN. That makes it a "disputed state" by your definition. I know, silly argument, but frankly, I think that claiming that there is any problem defining which are the disputed states is a bit silly. We know what they are. The fact of their being disputed is not in itself in dispute. If you want to split them into groups so that you can semi-exclude Palestine, just put them in two groups: states that are undisputed (nearly all of them) and states that are disputed (the rest). What's the actual problem? There shouldn't be any great problem about including whatever you want to include -- it's demands for exclusion that causes the problem. Grace Note 04:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, since we know what they are, what are the unambiguously "disputed states"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If we include Palestine, why not call it by the name of it's government: the Palestinian Authority. Zscout370 (talk) 14:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Will dependencies (e.g. overseas territories, crown dependencies, territories) be included under any of these proposals? — Instantnood 09:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• No. Zscout370 (talk) 11:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you. — Instantnood 19:16, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

mainland China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC) Images

To let you know, I have re-uploaded the images of both flags into new file names to fit the Wikipedia convention on the ROC and the PRC. If you want to update varios pages in Wikipedia with the new images, that is up to you. The PRC image is name PRC_flag_large.png, while the ROC flag is named ROC_flag_large.png. Zscout370 (talk) 16:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The live link to Taiwan will only confuse people. All discussion of the political entity is covered at Republic of China, and not taiwan. People who click on Taiwan will only get confused when they cant find the country template (with the flag) there. The term "flag of Taiwan" is a westernism. The term does not exist in Chinese to refer to this flag. Even taiwan independence supporters, and especially Taiwan independence supporters, dont use the term since they seek a different (non-Chinese designed) flag of a Republic of Taiwan. --Jiang 03:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan is the generally accepted name for the country. That is why "Republic of China" is in brackets and follows Taiwan.--50Stars 03:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use Taiwan to equate with the naming conventions. The Taiwan article is not on the political entity and is thus irrelevant. We shouldnt link to irrelevant articles. --Jiang 04:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The whole world references Taiwan, you should as well...--50Stars 04:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is not true. The situation is far more complex than that, as has been explained on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). Equating "Taiwan" with "Republic of China" introduces unnecessary and easily avoidable bias and inaccuracy. For the link targets, we should stick with official names: People's Republic of China and Republic of China. For the link anchors, a compromise that uses both the colloquial names and the official names is fine IMO. For example, [[Republic of China|Taiwan (Republic of China)]] and [[People's Republic of China|China (People's Republic of China)]]. --MarkSweep 20:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I did is that instead of using the anchor names, what I did is China, People's Republic and moved the flag of the ROC underneath it, calling it China, Republic of. I know that is something few might not like, but it will (in my mind) be Wikipolitical Correct (c). Zscout370 (talk) 20:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me. I think "Taiwan" could also be mentioned in order to make this page easier to use (e.g. searching for "Taiwan" within this page and being pointed to the appropriate article on the ROC). --MarkSweep 22:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When someone searches for Taiwan, they get to the article about the Geography of the island. In order to get the Political information, you will have to go to Republic of China. Same thing: if you look for China, you will get the geography of it, but you have to see People's Republic of China to find who the Premier of China is (runs from the tomatoes and beer bottles hurled in his direction). Zscout370 (talk) 22:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please debate the naming conventions on the relevant page. The whole word does not adhere to NPOV as well. Try to change the rules through consensus, not by breaking them. How is the link relevant? The article needs to be changed before it is relevant. and for the article to be changed the rules need to be changed. The is the wrong page. --Jiang 04:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don;t see why you're linking to China. The country template is at People's Republic of China. the "China" link is irrelevant and POV. Please stick with the naming conventions. --Jiang 04:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, if you want to use "People's Republic of China", perhaps it should be listed under "P". Or, perhaps, we should reference the world, and just call it CHINA!--50Stars 04:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please debate the naming conventions on the relevant page. What's wrong with "China, People's Republic of"? --Jiang 04:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WHY? Because only the communist Chinese calls it PRC. The rest of the world just calls it China. For Example, United States is sufficient, you don't have to use "United States of America".--50Stars 04:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is because no other entity claims to be the United States. This is a consistent convention: check out Korea and Macedonia -- they don't point to actual country templates for the same reason. --Xiaopo ℑ 05:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I mainly just fixed the images to the Wikipolitical Correct names and start replacing pages/articles/templates with them. I figured yall want to know after I did this change. Zscout370 (talk) 03:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see definitions 1 and 2 at The American Heritage® Dictionary. The "Republic of China" can be defined as a "nation" under the two most common definitions. Stop linking to Taiwan when the countries' template is at Republic of China.--Jiang 04:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, and I'm not surprised Jiang and his buddies are spewing their bias all of the place again. No one calls ROC China. How the hell is anyone going to find the flag there? There are two choices. List under Taiwan or list under ROC and link to both. In the entry area, we can link from under ROC to the Taiwan entry under T in case someone looks for it there (I think vice versa is less good since Taiwan is the more common name).--160.39.195.88 00:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

However, even if a majority of people call the ROC Taiwan and the PRC China, that is now how the governmental pages are named. If you head to China, you get the geographic page. If you go to Taiwan, so you see the same thing. Since we are an international encyclopedia, we have to hammer out agreements that will please a huge majority of people. And the consensus now is to have the political pages of China and Taiwan to be at People's Republic of China and Republic of China, respectively. Zscout370 (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I support putting in the word "Taiwan" somewhere, but I oppose linking to it. It makes it more, not less, confusing to link to Taiwan because that is the wrong article. We want the article on the Republic of China because this is the Flag of the Republic of China and not the Flag of Taiwan. No one but westerners calls it the flag of Taiwan. --Jiang 00:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

enumerates vs. regroups

Could someone please explaine the semantic diffrence here in using regroups vs. enumerates in the first paragraph? Mainly I am intrested in someon form the regroups camp to explaine how its better. Though I would settel for how it even makes sense. Even though I am a native speaker of english I could not figure out what it means there. Regroups how? Regroups from what? I looked both words up to try and find some way that regroups would work and I came up blank. Enumerates does seem to work. But, grammar and such have never been my strongest point so I am totally open to having it explained. From dictionary.com I get:

re·group 
v. re·grouped, re·group·ing, re·groups
v. tr.
   To arrange in a new grouping.

v. intr.

  1. To come back together in a tactical formation, as after a dispersal in a retreat.
  2. To reorganize for renewed effort, as after a temporary setback.

I am haing trouble reconciling this word with the concept of a "list" as the title of this article indicates. Dalf | Talk 04:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page Problems

Hey yall. I have been having a few server problems loading the article page. Do yall have the same problem too? Zscout370 (talk) 16:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===>Oh yeah I've had several problems loading this page, and my university has one of fastest connections in the world... Justin (koavf) 18:41, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• It's not just you. I'm having trouble above and beyond my normal DNS errors. --Carnildo 18:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My Solution

Ok, I just think this might be the best (and perhaps the only)solution we got: kill this and the Gallery pages. Pretty much, no matter what we define, many locations will be excluded, and there will be many POV edits, leading us nowhere. We just have a Gallery of Flags and a Gallery of Coat of Arms and merge everything to there. Zscout370 (talk) 02:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An all-inclusive Gallery of Flags? Do you know just how many flags there are in the world? I could add a few thousand with just the state and county flags from the United States. --Carnildo 03:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then a Gallery of International flags, where nations/dependenceies, NGO's, groups like the EU and UN, etc. If we lump all of those flags together, then we have one area to reach flags, instead of countless pages. I know that Wikipedia is not a paper, but I am choosing this option due to efficency (and to keep myself from losing years of my life). Zscout370 (talk) 13:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be feasible to instead move the page to avoid the "national" red rag (as it were)? "States" or "countries" or "UN members" would admittedly be more clumsy, but would correspond more closely with the definition in the lead section of the article, which itself ought to settle pretty much all the above disputes. Alai 08:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

"States" runs into problems with the USA, while "countries" has the same problems that "nations" does. "UN members" is unambiguous, but is sufficiently restrictive that people will try to fork the article so they can fight over Taiwan and Palestine. --Carnildo 09:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

In what way will they try to fork the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Most likely, by creating an article entitled List of national flags, as a more-inclusive list than List of flags of UN members. After all, there are a number of territory-controlling entities out there that aren't members of the UN. --Carnildo 07:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but those could be VfDd as POV forks. And this article could still be called List of National Flags; it would just make clear at the top that "National" is defined as "Full membership in the U.N.". Jayjg ^(talk) 07:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Defining "nationhood" on the basis of UN membership is POV and cannot be accepted. --Jiang 10:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently all definitions of "nationhood" are POV; at least UN membership is objectively definable. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Nationhood is not a requirement for membership; only statehood is. And even then, membership is strictly voluntary. It just so happens that in the past decade, almost every sovereign state has joined. --Jiang

And if we were debating this list in 2001, we would not have either Switzerland or East Timor on the list. And once they have joined, they would have been added to the list. If Palestine becomes a FULL member of the UN, it can be added. Until then, we will not see the flags of the Vatican, Palestine and the ROC on this list for a little while. I am glad of getting that UN page done, I was getting tired with the edit conflicts with myself. Zscout370 (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Or "independent states", then, if qualification is really necessary, though personally I'm not convinced that can't simply be clarified in the article lead, if there's a title that's at least congruent to it. "Country" isn't watertight, but it's a closer fit to the intended topic than the current title. And as for the last suggestion: do you believe it to be too restrictive, or are you essentially saying, people will fight no matter what, so let's not bother? Alai 15:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

People will fight, no matter what we do. As for the UN list being too restrictive, I do not think so. I think the list will be very clear, since only UN members will be in this list. Zscout370 (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

What about sticking to one of the lists at category:lists of countries, for instance, list of sovereign states or list of countries? — Instantnood 23:33, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

It's the same old circular problem; how does one define "sovereign state" or "country"? Then everyone brings their own definition, and the revert wars start. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

True.. but which are qualified on these lists, and which are not, can be considered together, if the criteria for this list is linked to one of them. — Instantnood 21:34, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there should be only one list. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but we need to have a shared definition before doing anything. Though, I might have asked this once, but should we put the Gallery of national flags on the VFD? My reasoning is that other than the name of the page, everything is the same. Zscout370 (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

VFD is not the place for such things. Merge and redirect redundant pages. Sam Spade 20:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, but we will probably have to go through a VFD-like process before any merging and redirecting is performed. I am still waiting for a solution, though I am still sticking to my idea about just creating a UN page of flags and call it a day. Zscout370 (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

UN Members Solution

Well, I started the Flags of UN Members page. I know this is not the end off all of our problems, but I do forsee pages like Flags of IOC Members, Flags of EU Members, Flags of Arab League Members, etc. But hey, that is more clear than what we have right now. Zscout370 (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

GD, Server problems are preventing me from accessing the page. For those who can, they can edit the page to make sure the images are right, and also to name them according to what the UN has them under. Thanks to whoever can pull that off. Zscout370 (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Well flags can be added to every lists of countries, like what has been done to list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions, list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita and list of dignitaries at the funeral of Pope John Paul II. What is actually needed is a gallery of all flags by alphabetical order. — Instantnood 21:53, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

We have a List of flags, but I am not sure when that was last updated. I am still trying to toy with the UN list, but I am keeping on having edit conflicts (sadly, with myself). Zscout370 (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Flags of <certain group of countries> is somehow redundant, as lists of <certain group of countries> can be arranged like list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions, list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita or list of dignitaries at the funeral of Pope John Paul II. What is useful is a gallery with all the flags. — Instantnood 21:08, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Update: Ok, the UN page is done, I am ready for comments/criticisms/hate mail/anything you want to dish at me. Zscout370 (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a fine page. What next? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The closure of this page and the Gallery of National flags and have them redirect to there. Zscout370 (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Update: I closed the UN flag pages, since I found a UN members page, with flags, already exists. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This morning's revert

User:Spastika has decided to add the Palestine flag to the list, despite of the issue being debated here. I would like to remind everyone here that is new with the discussion is that we are not adding any more flags to the list without a clear idea of what is going on. Those who still decide to add the Palestine flag will see their edit reverted. Thank you. Zscout370 (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Spastika is just another in a long line of sockpuppets. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I resent your personal attack on me and ask that you apologize. --Spaz 22:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Just a factual description; or do you claim to be an entirely new user who has never edited before? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I know things went to hell in a handbasket when User:Islamist did exactly what Spastika did this morning. I just hope that this mess is all over, so we can get to the business of what should happen to this page. IMHO, I saw other "National" pages did not include Palestine in them, so I guess something must have been decided before I got here. And to drift off subject, I was wondering what yall thought about the page Flag of Palestine being renamed to Flag of the Palestinian National Authority? Zscout370 (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Why is Taiwan's flag here but the Palestinian one is not allowed? --Spaz 22:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Please read through the talk: page again. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

===>Taiwan vs. Palestine: Taiwan administers its own territory, whereas the PNA only has devolved authority from the Israeli state. Justin (koavf) 22:56, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Joavf, can you do a few reversions. I think I am out of them for today, unless you consider what is going on this page vandalism or something else. Zscout370 (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Well you seem to have defined "national" as "a full member of the UN" purely to exclude Palestine. Frankly, I think that an NPOV page would have defined it to include Palestine but in a way acceptable to you. Having said that, I don't support Spastika (who should be blocked forthwith)'s revert.Grace Note 23:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Note: The same problems are also taking place at the Gallery of national flags. I am seeing what other options I have, unless yall do not mind go ahead and kill both pages now and redirect them to the UN flag page, Flags of UN Members. Zscout370 (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Unless there are too many objections, I'm going to redirect this page to Flags of UN Members. --Carnildo 23:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I am going to move the Gallery page now, I will wait on the List (this page). I will use the Gallery as a test dummy. Zscout370 (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you should VfD this page if you don't want it. Otherwise, you can have no real complaint if an editor resurrects it and populates it with their idea of "national flags". I don't think defining "nations" as "UN members" is a solution to the very real problem that some think Palestine, as an example, is a nation and some don't.Grace Note 23:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

This is the logic: Move the national pages to the UN page, since the UN page has a clear defintion. We are just including flags of UN members, not former and observer nations. If people try to recreate the national flag pages, those can be VFD'ed for being a POV fork. At least we have a clear definition now. Zscout370 (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a POV definition that has been specifically arrived at to exclude certain nations, and in particular Palestine. The UN member page is all very well, but it's not a list of national flags. Yes, it's a clear definition, but not actually a definition of what was supposed to be on this page. Grace Note 00:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

That's a rather insulting argument; I could as easily say that people who oppose the definition "are doing so specifically to include certain non-nations, and in particular Palestine". The fact is that there is at least one unambigiuous definition of what a nation is, and that is full United Nations membership; that's hardly a POV conclusion, but rather an utterly logical one. Defining all sorts of sub-national entities as "nations" and then trying to include them on a List of Nations page is a POV waste of time leading to endless edit wars. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel insulted, Jay, but that has been exactly what you've been arguing here. Yes, I want a definition that includes Palestine. I'm not pretending otherwise. It's my POV that it should be included.I wouldn't be disputing it with you if I didn't! Not because I have any strong feelings on my own part over whether it should be considered a nation or not. I think that's just splitting hairs. But clearly there is some sentiment that it is. I don't think there's anything wrong with a frank acceptance that we have different views on whether Palestine should be included as a nation. We have after all been giving those different views. I gave a definition of "nation", sourced to a reputable source, Jay. I mentioned the controversy that exists -- the two views on what makes a nation. I suggested a solution that should satisfy both sides. Your definition is rather spurious. The UN doesn't take a stance on its being the sole register of nations. If it does, please source that. Your solution of course excludes the other view completely. I suggested a compromise. You have found a route that excludes compromise. I'm sure you didn't mean to do that. Grace Note 07:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, considering that they said they were going to include the vatican too, which is not a un member, makes that definition unworkable. Since views are divergent on this issue, i see no reason not to use both definitions for the page, and maybe have an asterik next to nations which are so considered because of the common heritage definition, rather than the sovereign state definition.--

I'm fairly sure that Taiwan isn't a UN member either. Could the editors who have reverted each inclusion of Palestine confirm why they are not also taking out Taiwan, given the definition they support?Grace Note 14:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 14:06, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

It is very hard to even define nation, based on what I whitnessed above. Some people on Wikipedia sometimes confuse the terms country, nation, soverign state with each other. The reason why I created the UN nation is to have the fight over, and the other flags can be listed at List of flags. Plus, we have a clear idea on what a UN Member is, not a nation. I know it is a solution that not everyone will be happy with, but then, we cannot please everyone. Zscout370 (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

That solution is inadequate. You are working with a very weird deifnition of nation, and creating a page that would not fulfill the role of the national flag pages at all. I don't see what's the big problem with just keeping it "national flags" and including Quebec, Palestine, Kurdistan, Taiwan, Tibet, Western Sahara, etc... Nations are not states or sovereign states. I think there's an awful lot of effort going into avoiding listing what the national flag pages are meant to list, just because the person who brough this up seems to be a troll. Fine, but don't let the trolls make you do something rediculous either.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 16:39, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

And changing the flag of palestine page to flag of palestinian national authority is highly offensive.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 16:43, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, at the current name of the flag page, Flag of Palestine, though there is a region called Palestine, it has more than one nation in the area. There is no Palestine State (yet), so the only reasonable choices (and perhaps NPOV) choices is to call the page the Palestinian Flag or Flag of the PNA, which is the government that administers the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. As for the nations aurguments, Quebec is a Canadian Province, Kurdistan is not a nation, but a region in Iraq. Tibet is a Government in Exile, and if you want to stretch it, the Republic of China is also an exiled government. Zscout370 (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I agree w che, all this stretching to exclude dubious states is both offensive and unhelpful to the reader. They come here looking for flags, not for your definition of a state. Include all flags, tibet, sealand, republic of china, whoever. Sam Spade 17:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Then we should begin to go to List of flags and just ditch everything else. If this is agreed upon, then I will close the UN page I created. Zscout370 (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

again, nation is not the same thing as state. Kurds consider themselves a nation, and by definition they are. Natives in Canada are legally referred to as "first nations peoples" for a reason. Quebec considers itself a nation, and its parliament is called the national assembly. By definition, quebecois are a nation. Palestinians consider themselves a nation, and again, by definition, because of shared culture, heritage, language, etc... they are. Etc... As for palestinian flag, you are being far too legalistic here. Palestine may not be a legal entity, but it is what the flag is of. Palestine as an idea. Palestinian flag is no different than flag of palestine. No different from Flag of Kurdistan. Anyways, I'm not personally offended, and I know you're a good guy and are doing this in good faith, I'm just telling you that changing it would be offensive to many people.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 17:35, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

There's already a place for the flag of every group that imagines itself to be a nation; you'll find it at Flags of non-sovereign nations. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

That's offensive. This is a list of national flags, and these are not groups that imagine themselves to be nations, these are groups that are, by definition. The page you're linking to is an arbitrary segregation that makes no sense. If you want, you can have a "state flags" page, or "sovereign nation flags" page, or whatever, but this page should include nations that are not states. You can't just arbitrarily redefine nation so that it is synonymous with state.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 17:56, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that might be true if everyone to agreed on your preferred definition of a "nation" (vs. "state", "sovereign state", "ethnic group", "people", etc.) Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Or, we can be less politically charged and just call it the Palestinian flag. It is used by the people of that group and when we (the world see it), we know they are for (or against) the Palestinian cause. The PNA is mainly the government that deals with the nations, and I personally think some people (including myself) are looking at these issues as a political scientist. I know that some people confuse nation and country. In my sociology book (by John Macionis), a shared language and a way of life. A nation is defined as political entity. Though this definition may not be correct, but this highlights my point above. Your right, some people call themselves a nation (we have Indian Nations across my country), but we just show flags of soverign states. But then, each nation has their own way of classifying what is a state and what is not a state. If we choose the CIA definition, we would be labeled as American Bigots, Zionists, etc. If we took another point of view (let's say British, or Chinese, or even Swiss) we have people calling us other names and will have a POV edit war with those who support Taiwan/ROC Independence, etc. This is a lose-lose situation, so I just think, as I mentioned earlier, I will go with Sam's idea and put everything on the List of flags. But then, we will just see the battles over there to see which flag goes under each heading. (I will be glad when this is over). Zscout370 (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

It really is not this complicated. You need to seperate the idea of state from the idea of nation, and allow groups such as the basques, the northern irish, the taiwanese, the tibetans, the chiapans, the palestinians, the kurds, the quebecois etc... to fall under nation, but not under state/sovereign nation. I don't see why we have to go to all this trouble to exclude these groups. It makes no sense. As for the flag of palestine page, it should remain as it is. Changing it is more politically charged than leaving it as it is now, and will open up a lot more troubles.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 17:56, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

We can always change the flag back to the original page once it becomes a state. But I see your point. Most pages are listed Flag of X location, so I just think it was a naming convention that is causing this debate. Though, I am thinking that if we merge everything into List of flags, we can create a sub-heading called Flags of Ethnic groups, then we can add all of those flags, and then some, into that list. Zscout370 (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Restoration of the Gallery

FYI, a user restored the Gallery of national flags, and also included the flag of the Palestinian Authority. I went ahead and restored the redirect on that page to here. Any questions anyone? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't suppose we can get the redirect permanently protected? --Carnildo 03:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

This only happened once in weeks. If it starts to pick up, then I will field a request for protection. I just suggest for everyone to add the Gallery to their watch list and see if anything happens. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I for one would want to restore the gallery. It was much nicer looking, more useful and more correct (per flag sizes) than this, and the whole problem of definition hasn't dissapeared by deprecating it for this title. Zocky 02:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I believe the decision was that the same issues were being discussed on both pages, both pages had the same flags. As for the ratio business, what we can do is just have the flags at a fixed pixel size (100px) and see what happens. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Then one of the talk pages could've been made to redirect to the other. The problem of duplicate discussion isn't enough of a reason to blank a page which has been around for a long time and was worked on by many people. Zocky 02:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The link to the talk page is listed at top, I will restore the page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I archived all discussion about the inclusion of flags on that talk page and made the notice at the top a bit more explicit. Zocky 03:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I will also talk about the actual images itself here in a few days. I need to answer the concerns on the Gallery talk page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I also thought the original Gallery page had a nicer layout. In an attempt to make the flags look more uniform I set up this page: User:Mloester/Sandbox/flags. Would it make sense to edit the List of national flags page to look like this? Mloester 19:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This page has inherent non NPOV. The definition at the top of the page "The list of national flags regroups flags representing independent states" is to say the least confusing. If that definition is used then why not use the definition List of flags of UN members which redirects to United Nations member states. I suggest that this page is redirected there as well.

The problem is that there is an assumption that Nation and State are interchangable. This is an idea from the U.S. and French Revolutions, but to anyone who lives in a nation which pre-dates those events: Nation, State and Sovereignty are constitutionally very different things.

In the case of the Commonwealth of Nations and more specifically the United Kingdom sovereignty does not lie with the nations but with the Crown (see also British monarchy). Think of all those costume dramas about Henry VIII and you start to understand how the constitution works in the UK. Ambassadors to the UK present their credentials directly to the sovereign at the Court of St. James's not to the Government of the United Kingdom. Only Commonwealth High Commissioners present their credentials to "to the United Kingdom," rather than to the Sovereign or her Court. The Parliament of the UK is the British Peoples' Parliament (English Civil War and specifically 1649) but because of the English Restoration in 1660 the Government of the United Kingdom is Her Majesty's Government .

Although this is a wander down the archic dusty corners of the British constitution it is important because it highlights that Sovereignty, State and Nation are not the same thing which is why the pople who insist that they are get into conflict in this talk page with those who try to include nations which are not states in this article.

If this is to be as the list says in the first sentence "The list of national flags regroups flags representing independent states" then it should be a redirect to United Nations member states

I can appreciate that the contributers to this list have invested time and commitment to making up the list, but if it is not to be replaced with a redirect then it should be moved to a name which represents what it is. A list of "sovreign state flags", it is not a list of National flags --Philip Baird Shearer 10:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I argued much the same thing as you for a couple of weeks in May; in particular, I argued that the idea of an "independent state" was inherently POV, and was always going to be disputed, and that therefore full U.N. membership should be used instead. If you look over the old talk, you'll see I was dismissed as having a POV-based agenda. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes I read the debate. If people are keen to keep this page, then I suggest that it is moved to list of sovereign state flags and the definition at the top states that it is a list of flags used by the list of sovereign states. Then if there is a debate about whether an entity is a sovereign state it can be debated on the Talk:List of sovereign states instead of here. However it would seem to me sane to add the flags from this page into "list of sovereign states", but that could be step two. Philip Baird Shearer 17:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Archives

• Talk:List of national flags/Archive01
• Talk:List of sovereign state flags/Archive 2

If this list is missing the flags of any of the states included in the list of sovereign states please include it here. Philip Baird Shearer 11:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Merge with list of sovereign states

I think it would be a good idea to merge this list of flags with list of sovereign states and then make this page a redirect. This is what has been done with List of flags of UN members which redirects to United Nations member states. -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Unrecognized countries (from Gallery of sovereign state flags

===>This discussion has already occured In a debate over Palestine, and consensus was reached. Now, without any consensus, Abkhazia is being added, with the terse response that this article is being brought into line with List of sovereign state flags. I checked the talk page there, and consensus was not reached regarding the addition of these so-called states. My main points of contention are as follows:

1. The legitimacy of an article like this is immediately in question once unrecognized secessionist groups are included. Once micronations like Sealand or Seborga are included (as they logically would be), the article becomes accuracy bankrupt.
2. The inclusion is, I suspect, largely politically-motivated. I would personally like it if, say, West Papua was internationally recognized as independent, but I would not include it in a list of independent states, as it is neither independent nor a state.
3. The very idea of making this article conform to the list of sovereign state flags is itself not apparently logical. Why shouldn't that article conform to these standards? Since no consensus was reached, there is no reason to assume that this one should change.
4. If a country is unrecognized, it is not a state, and has no place on this list. There is already the article "Flags of non-recognized nations" for such entities. If someone wishes to add a footnote or "see also" section, by all means do. Justin (koavf) 03:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I Reverted your edit. Make you arguments on Talk:List of sovereign states not here. If the List of sovereign states changes so should this article as this article is just a list of flags of the states under List of sovereign states. Philip Baird Shearer 16:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Flag of Afghanistan

I just wanna say that Afghnistan has changed its flag in 2004.

The flag has new proportions (2/3 instead of 1/2).

http://www.flags.net/country.php?country=AFGH&section=CURR&category=NATL

Fabien A.

Split the article?

I'd suggest splitting this article into "List of sovereign state flags (A-L)" and "List of sovereign state flags (M-Z)". With all the images, this page takes quite a while to load on my shared cable modem, so it must be excruciating for those who use dialup. And it probably puts an incredible amount of strain on the Wikimedia Commons servers as all those flag images load. --Oddtoddnm 03:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Footnote

From the history of the article:

Updated footnote format, simplified Palestine footnote and added that it's not really a de facto state (maybe Lebanon, Tibet, etc. should get footnotes too to indicate they're only semi-sovereign?

I do not think so. This article should reflect the List of sovereign states on this issue and not diverge. If you think these should be added then first do in on the other page before making the change here. Philip Baird Shearer 11:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)