Talk:Dependent territory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 British Territories 2 What counts as inhabited 3 To add? 4 Kosovo 5 Basque Country 6 Australian territories 7 Åland 8 Canada 9 China, Russia 10 Moved content 11 Hong Kong 12 France 13 Portugal 14 Page Move 15 Requested move 15.1 Survey and discussion 16 four entities which have special positions recognised by international treaty or agreement 17 History of this Page 18 Edits of Dec. 2006 19 Norwegian dependencies

[edit] British Territories

I take it that the discussion below is now of less significance to the current form of the page which appears to exclude completely uninhabited places but not distinguish between others - I can't make it out from the history, but have I got that right?

On that basis can I make a some suggestions which should maybe wait for the poll on Akrotiri and Dhekelia at Template talk:Europe and should perhaps co-ordinate with what is going on at Special member state territories and their relations with the EU? There are 3 British Crown Dependencies Guernsey, Jersey, and Isle of Man;

plus

14 British Overseas Territories - Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St Helena and Dependencies (Ascension and Tristan da Cunha), South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

The list on this page misses out -

British Antarctic Territory - just has researchers there, but so do South Georgia and South Sandwich

Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia - sounds like just a military base, but actually has about 7,000 Cypriot civilian permanent inhabitants not related to the bases (plus further temporarily posted 7,000 UK civilians and military connected to the bases) - whereas BIOT is listed here although it is purely a US military base (Diego Garcia) from which all the inhabitants (Ilois or Chagossians) were deported, and St Helena plus its dependencies have large military presence (on Ascension) with about same non-military-related population as SBAs.Civil Servant 14:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The thing is:

• The areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are not Cypriot territory, they are British territory, where British law is applicable. BIOT is made of some islands that are British Territory too. I don't see any differences. "Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia - sound like just a military base". Yes it sounds, but a military base is not Akrotiri and Dhekelia. The areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia contain military bases. For instance, Guantanamo is not american territory. It is Cuban territory rented to the USA. Guatanamo is different from Ak. & Dhek.--Joao Campos 02:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What counts as inhabited

Palmyra Atoll has no indigenous inhabitants, but 4 to 20 Nature Conservancy staff and US Fish and Wildlife staff. Please see CIA - The World Factbook -- Palmyra Atoll. Pædia 15:48, 2004 May 25 (UTC)

That is a July 2003 estimate. Check http://nature.org/wherewework/asiapacific/palmyra/ and http://nature.org/wherewework/asiapacific/palmyra/faqs/index.html. Who do you trust the CIA or TNC? older≠wiser 19:52, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

You are totally correct to call it uninhabited, by definition. However, in the context of this article, it probably belongs under heading 2; the last Nature Conservancy Press Release was January 18, 2001. Pædia 09:23, 2004 May 31 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the distinction is supposed to indicate. There are likely "visitors" to most of the U.S. islands that are designated Wildlife Refuges. To me the word uninhabited means there are no permanent residents. Just about anyplace can have visitors--I don't understand the point of making such a distinction. older≠wiser 21:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In my interpretation, Inhabited means "lived in by permanent residents", Stationed personnel or visitors means "permanently staffed or visited regularly", and Uninhabited means "at most, visited about annually". Pædia 13:26, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the explanations should go with each header. Maybe I'm the only one confused, but I don't find the second heading to be self-explanatory. I also think there is a big difference between a place with permanently stationed personnel and places that do not have permanent residents (though they may be visited occasionally). older≠wiser 14:57, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In previous revisions, the second heading read "Islands and territories with stationed or visiting personel" [sic]. I believe this to be misleading, as some regular visitors are fishermen not "personnel". We may agree on your last statement. Pædia 18:25, 2004 Jun 5 (UTC)

You might be correct to move Ashmore and Cartier Islands to short-term visitors, although illegal immigrants from Indonesia's Rote Island and Indonesian fishermen do visit regularly. However, Palmyra Atoll does have "personnel stationed year-round". Thanks. Pædia 15:51, 2004 Jun 15 (UTC)

Ok, but where do you see that there are year-round personel at Palmyra? Except for the CIA fact file, everything I have seen describes it as uninhabited, which seems pretty unambiguous to me. older≠wiser 16:05, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Upon investigation, the most current publication is The World Factbook (July 2003 est.). Palmyra Atoll was "uninhabited" before July 2000. Please see CIA -- The World Factbook 2000 -- Palmyra Atoll. Pædia 22:41, 2004 Jun 15 (UTC)

[edit] To add?

Shouldn't Macau and Hong Kong be included in the list? And what about Western Sahara? Why are the Bassas da India, Tromelin Island, etc, listed under one territory?

Hong Kong and Macau shouldn't be listed since China considers them to be part of the country, a special administrative region, not a dependency. --Gangulf 21:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In terms of politics and government structures, Hong Kong and Macao are dependent territories, except for the rights of getting independence. Although many may associate the term "dependent territories" with colonies or trust territories that have to right to be independence, it's not necessary. A google search of "Hong Kong" and "dependency status" gives more than 5000 hits.

If anybody is not happy or is confused with the term "dependent territories", we may have to work out a better alternative. At the moment I can think of "non-sovereign entities" and "entities that are non-sovereign". Some sort of definitions will be necessary, such as the rights to issue currencies, to send delegations to international organisations, to have its own judiciary, customs and immigration policies, extradition, citizenship, etc. — Instantnood 10:29 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

Gangulf is right. The two SARS of Hong Kong and Macau have ceased to be "dependent" since they reverted back to Chinese rule in 1997 and 1999 respectively. I noticed they are also classified under "special territories", and that is much more plausible. Otherwise, will they be happy being classified under "autonomous territories?--Huaiwei 17:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although they are not colonies and theoretically no right to be independent, they are dependent territories. — Instantnood 21:23, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dependent of who? China? The opposite of an "independent" territory is not neccesarily a "dependent" one!--Huaiwei 21:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind telling how would you define the term "dependent territory"? — Instantnood 23:00, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Me? Well lets look at how the British (and Commonwealth) call a "dependent territory" instead:

• Dependent Territories

"A dependent territory is a territory belonging by settlement, conquest or annexation to the British, Australian or New Zealand Crown.

There are 14 British dependent territories, which are: British Indian Ocean Territory, Gibraltar, Bermuda, Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, British Antarctic Territory, St Helena and its dependencies (Ascension and Tristan da Cunha), Montserrat, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Anguilla, the Pitcairn Group of Islands, and the Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus. Hong Kong, a former dependent territory, was handed back to China on 1 July 1997."

So....does the PRC call HK and Macau "dependent territories"? Does it rule these two places via "settlement, conquest or annexation"? Show us these...and then we shall talk further. It is hardly an issue of how I define things.--Huaiwei 05:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cool. Overseas departments of the French Republic were also acquired by settlement, conquest or annexation. The definition of one of the sovereign states is not necessarily applicable to this list that involved many sovereign states. It needs a definition that allows generalisability and comparison among different sovereign states. — Instantnood 07:58, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oh...so you feel it is neccesary to assume all countries defines "dependencies" the same way eh? So may I know if the PRC "acquired" HK by "settlement, conquest or annexation" in 1997?--Huaiwei 11:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did I say that? What I said was the definition of one of the sovereign states does not apply to all country. A definition with generalisability has to be worked out for this list. — Instantnood 11:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

You are implying that, isnt it obvious enough? Again I ask more specifically to the case in question here: Did the PRC "acquired" HK by "settlement, conquest or annexation" in 1997?--Huaiwei 11:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No I did not imply that. Quote the sentence if you insist I did. And no for the second question. — Instantnood 12:01, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

"It needs a definition that allows generalisability and comparison among different sovereign states." If you are not asking for a singular way of defining dependent territories using one general definition, then may I know what this line is for? So, the PRC did NOT "acquir" HK by "settlement, conquest or annexation" in 1997. What makes it a "dependent territory" of the PRC then, since it falls outside the definition of the Commonwealth countries?--Huaiwei 12:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did you read " The definition of one of the sovereign states is not necessarily applicable to this list that involved many sovereign states. "? This is a response to your quote of the definition on the British monarchy's website. — Instantnood 12:16, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed quite obvious that they interpret that term differently. Therefore again I ask two tings. Firstly, why do you then call for a generalised term to fit all those entities into one? Second, sure, they define dependencies differently. Now, have you showed us how the PRC defines her dependencies?--Huaiwei 12:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can't there be a general definition that is useful and applicable to most cases? — Instantnood 13:08, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Isnt it also possible to have seperate sections for each "Controlling" country if the differences warrant it, since you yourself admitted there are differences, and yet at the same time want them amalgamated?--Huaiwei 13:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some of these sovereign states already do, but some people may argue some of the territories listed here are not dependent ones. — Instantnood 13:28, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oh? Then why should they be here then?--Huaiwei 13:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they be here? — Instantnood 13:44, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Coz they are not dependent territories as you say?--Huaiwei 13:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did I? Alright then. — Instantnood 14:40, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oh...So we shall remove them now? --Huaiwei 06:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did I say they are not dependent territories? — Instantnood 14:33, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

---

Let us reread again the definitions as set out in Dependent area:

Dependent territories are commonly distinguished from subnational entities of the same country since they in most cases represent a different order of separation. A subnational entity typically represents a division of the country proper, while a dependent territory might be an overseas territory that enjoys a greater degree of autonomy.

And from subnational entities:

Subnational entity is a generic term for an administrative region within a country — on an arbitrary level below that of the sovereign state — typically with a local government encompassing multiple municipalities, counties, or provinces with a certain degree of autonomy in a varying number of matters. Confusingly, in countries that are not nation states, this may well mean that some or all "subnational" entities in reality are also national entities.

Subnational entities are conceptually separate from dependent areas so that the former are included in the core or mainland of the respective state.

Hong Kong and Macau, as subdivisions of the country of the People's Republic of China, and with a local government of high autonomy (we have to see how the on-going drama over the its choice of leader turns out thou)...is it a "dependent territory" or a "subnational entity" now?

It is becoming plain obvious.--Huaiwei 06:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then what they are? — Instantnood 14:33, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I would say after reading this discussion that they are subnational entities with an high degree of autonomy and not dependent territories. Gangulf 16:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spot on. ;) --Huaiwei 11:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Same quotes:

From Dependent area: " Dependent territories are commonly distinguished from subnational entities of the same country since they in most cases represent a different order of separation. A subnational entity typically represents a division of the country proper, while a dependent territory might be an overseas territory that enjoys a greater degree of autonomy. "

--> From this quote, everyone can tell the definition is not all encompassing.

From subnational entities: " Subnational entities are conceptually separate from dependent areas so that the former are included in the core or mainland of the respective state.

--> Hong Kong and Macao are obviously not considered as part of mainland China, or core parts of the PRC.

From subnational entities: " Subnational entity is a generic term for an administrative region within a country — on an arbitrary level below that of the sovereign state — typically with a local government encompassing multiple municipalities, counties, or provinces with a certain degree of autonomy in a varying number of matters. Confusingly, in countries that are not nation states, this may well mean that some or all "subnational" entities in reality are also national entities. "

--> I have read through the administrative division structure in the constitution of the PRC. Special administrative regions are not part of its administrative division system, which is prescribed by the Article 30. Article 31, which is on the special administrative region, does not say SARs are part of its division system. In other words, special administrative regions can also be posessions or colonies, and in the case of Hong Kong and Macao, dependent territories with no right to obtain independence, but at the same time are not integrated into the rest of the State. — Instantnood 09:18, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Your recent edit is amusing. Everyone?? --Huaiwei 03:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

Kosovo and Metohija is a UN protectorate. Is such a protectorate qualified to be listed in this article? (or as a disputed or occupied area or unrecognised country?) — Instantnood 20:06, Feb 15 2005 (UTC)

Please read the definition of a Dependent area:

The areas separately referred to as non-independent are territories that are disputed, are occupied, have a government in exile or have a non-negligible independence movement.

Kosovo is a disputed area within an country, and should be listed at List of active autonomist and secessionist movements. If being a UN protectorate is considered "dependent", I suppose we will have to redefine the meaning of being "dependent". Does it also include receiving aid from non-governmental international organisations?--Huaiwei 06:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kosovo is special since it developed into a UN protectorate. That was the reason to include it. It is certainly not an autonomist and secessionist movement. So I would suggest to keep it in. Gangulf 16:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right. The difference is those after the World War 2 were UN trust territories and are mandated to other countries to administer, while Kosovo is administered by the UN. — Instantnood 09:26, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to renew objections to its inclusion here. While it may be de facto administered by the UN, it is still de jure an autonomous province of the Republic of Serbia, one of the two constituent republics of the sovereign state of Serbia and Montenegro, isn't it? At the very least, the case should be explained more clearly. john k 00:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Basque Country

Basque Country has an entry in Category:Political parties by country, but is not mentioned in this article. How should this situation be resolved? Thanks, Beland 03:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===>Response: The Basque Country (or at least the majority and the only politically-valuable region) is an administrative district (or subnational entity) of Spain. This page about political parties is an anomaly. Justin (koavf) 03:42, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australian territories

I'm somewhat ignorant here, but are the territories listed here all substantively different from the Northern Territory? That is to say, why is Northern Territory considered a subnational entity, but these other territories are considered dependent territories? john k 00:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Northern Territory and the ACT have representation in parliament, the small islands don't. I am not sure if that justifies the distinction though. What we need is a more precise definition of dependent territory, one that doesn't depend on the legal peculiarities of individual countries. --Chl 20:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there any Australian law that governs the parliamentary representation of the territories, and addresses why ACT and Northern Territory have, and the islands have not? Thanks. — Instantnood 08:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Section 122 of the constitution says: "The Parliament may ... allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit." And then they have an individual federal law for the constitution of each territory. If a justification is needed, it would probably be size: the Northern Territory has 200,000 inhabitants and 2 representatives; none of the small island territories has more than 2,000 so that's not really enough to have a representative of their own. --Chl 13:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. As far as I know representation in the House of Representatives is based upon population, whereas for the Senate it's fixed. What is the reason why islands territories have no representation? Is it because of their population size, or because they're external? — Instantnood 17:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The number of senators is fixed for states, but not for territories. I doubt that we can find something in Australian law that gives us a reason for the different treatment of the small territories. They just do it that way. To put this into a broader perspective: is the District of Columbia a dependent territory of the USA? It has no representation in federal parliament/congress and no legislature of its own. --Chl 14:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

According to Australian Senate both Northern Territory and ACT are having two senators each (despite ACT has a much larger population). I am not sure if that's fixed for territories like states, or if it's based on a case-by-case basis, and it turned out both Northern Territory and ACT has got the same. Is there any underlying reason why the islands, notably Norfolk Islands, have got no representation, and are differentiated from mainland territories as external territories? Yes they can just do it, but why the Norfolk Islands has to be different from the mainland territories? Are these external territories like what Northern Territory and ACT prior to self governance? — Instantnood 15:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think the following text from the article on Norfolk explains why Norfolk should be listed:

Norfolk Island is the only non-mainland Australian territory to have achieved self-governance. The Norfolk Island Act, passed by the Parliament of Australia in 1979, is the Act under which the island is governed. The Australian Government maintains authority on the island through an Administrator (currently Grant Tambling) that is appointed by the Governor-General of Australia. A Legislative Assembly is elected by popular vote for a term of not more than three years, although legislation passed by the Australian Parliament can extend its laws to the territory at will. Electionworld 08:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The federal government is represented by an administrator in the Northern Territory too, who is appointed by the Governor-General. Self-governance was not achieved in ACT until 1988. I guess the only reason Norfolk Island is excluded is that legislation passed by the Australian Parliament may or may not be extended to it, unlike the case of Northern Territory and the ACT. — Instantnood 09:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Åland

I'm interested to know why Åland listed is not listed? Did it ever appear on the list? — Instantnood 14:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the same thing. What about all autonomous regions and territories? Don't they have even greater political independence as oppose to some of these territories listed here? --Kvasir 22:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Autonomous territories which are incorporated into the countries are not dependent territories. Aland is part of Finland, the Canadian territories are part of Canada, Tibet and Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia are part of China, the republics are part of Russia. Puerto Rico is not part of the United States. john k 23:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Incorporation here is the focus point of the discussion here. Subnational entities - Canadian territories, PRC autonomous regions and the Russian republics - are normally incorporated into state proper and under the federal/central governments. Åland, in comparison, is not like these typical subnational entities. It is generally outside of the Finnish government. Some dependent territories listed in the article, such as the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Jan Mayen, are part of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of Norway, respectively. Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are, together with the European part of the Netherlands, three constituents of the Kingdom of Netherlands. In contrast, UK is an example that all crown dependencies and overseas territories are not considered part of itself. Obviously the systems vary from State to State.

Territories between those in the country-proper and external ones are not clear-cut as many might have thought. I have been trying to look for the differences between mainland territories (e.g. Northern Territory, ACT) and external territories (e.g. Norfolk Island) of Australia (see the section above), and the only major difference is representation in the Australian Parliament. Norfolk Island is self-governing and the other external territories aren't, but then ACT was too not self-governing in the past, it used to be administered by the federal government. US territories, namely, territories in North America in the past which later became states, and the current ones in the Caribbean and in the Pacific, could be very similar in nature, except their geographical locations.

Åland may not be a dependent territory when we're going strict on the definitions, but the way it is special should allows its listing - with careful additional notes. — Instantnood 08:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

In the case of the Netherlands Dutch law is not applicable in Aruba and the Antilles. I think the same goes for Denmark. Electionworld 12:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Do the Dutch and Danish parliaments have the power to enact laws that are extended to / applied in Aruba and the Antilles, and Faroe Islands and Greenland, like the Australian does to Norfolk? — Instantnood 12:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

The Dutch parliament doesn't have this power. A joint parliamentary session has to power to make Kingdom Laws on very specific matters, such as nationality. Electionworld 11:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. The set up is more like a loose federation than sovereign and dependencies in some sense. :-D — Instantnood 11:47, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

A relevant criterium is the applicatibility (is this English) of the legislation of the motherland. For example: In Aruba Dutch law is not applicable. The same goes for Norfolk, Australian law is not applicable. The Northern Territory has Australian legislation, though it can have additional own legislation. Another criterium is the way the motherland sees the territory: For example: Australia considers ACT to be part of Australia. A third criterium is the international status. The last criterium justifies Aland on the list. Electionworld 12:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

As for the second criterium Åland is considered part of Finland too, and so as Faroe Islands, Greenland, Svalbard and Jan Mayen to the Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of Norway. — Instantnood 12:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Why are, then, Bouvetøya, Jan Mayen and Svalbard on this list? They are integral parts of the Kingdom of Norway. Greenland and Faroes are not, because they are self-governing Danish territories. --Kvasir 19:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Svalbard is perhaps different from the other two. It is demilitarised, and it has a governor who's residing at its capital. Its sovereignty was awarded to Norway by treaty. Faroe and Greenland are part of the Kingdom of Denmark. There was actually a long discussion at template talk:Europe. :-) — Instantnood 20:27, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I will add the content of Dependent area as an introduction to this article. Electionworld 11:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

As Åland was without further discussion removed I re-added it. Also Hong Kong was removed by the same user, but I don't know anything about that discussion so I did not revert that change. Anyhow: Åland is demilitarized, has different international status, it's own separate EU-treaty, for example. It has it's own parliament, its own government and can make it's own laws. Within the Nordic Council, Åland is one of the eight members, and has equal status as the otehr countries and autonomous areas. There seems no reason at all not to include Åland. --Regebro 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You conveniently missed out on one defining criterion on what a dependency is as compared to a subnational entity: that they are not considered to be part of the motherland or mainland of the governing State. Trying to list out all examples of autonomy, but not being able to show that it is considered by law to be distinct from the "motherland", will not be helpful at all. This have been discussed very extensively before, and it is your onus to go read them up. We do not have to repeat the points all over again.--Huaiwei 17:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I may have "conventiently" missed out on that, but that doesn't change the fact that Åland still matches these criteria. It is not considered a part of the motherland or mainland of the governing state. I find it rather self-evident that it is not, or it wouldn't be discussed at all. ;)

I also can't find any consensus for your removal of Hong Kong, but maybe I misinterpret the debate below. --Regebro 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Greenland and the Faroe Islands are surely part of Denmark. Why are you keeping them on this list, Huaiwei? — Instantnood 18:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canada

So what is the consensus on Australian Territories? I think the situation for Canada's three territories is similar. --Kvasir 22:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Canada has no external territories like Australia does. :-) — Instantnood 12:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] China, Russia

What about these countries numerous autonomous republics and provinces? --Kvasir 22:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Here it is clear: China and Russia consider them as part of the motherland. Electionworld 12:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there has been a long-drawn out debate over whether the two SARs are dependencies or subnational entities.--Huaiwei 22:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think Kvasir and Gangulf are talking about autonomous regions of the PRC, and autonomous republics and autonomous oblasts and autonomous okrugs of Russia. ;-) — Instantnood 08:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

And so? I am talking about the SARs. Would you not think its about time the statuses of the two SARS should come under public and widespread scrutinity?--Huaiwei 08:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Huaiwei I understand you remain heavily sceptical towards their listings, but what should be said have been said. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Wikipedia is not a test ground to put forward your point of view. Wikipedia does not and should not present only one single point of view, and ignore the others. — Instantnood 09:07, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Mind defining what is being disruptive here. I have noticed your constant reference to that term, and I meanwhile do wonder if it similarly applies to your own edits. May I remind also, that being "disruptive" is not a wikipedia policy, but a semi-policy. Apparantly, it has its uses and merits if needed. Meanwhile, I would similarly love to know your agenda in the above point. I would have tought open discussion from all quaters would be the best solution in any content dispute. By the above, not only do you appear reluctant to talk, but you even called this a "disruptive" move. Sure, I do have a point to make. Do you have none? I doubt so. While you tell others not to use wikipedia to illustrate one view, may I know why is it so, that you appear to consider it justified for wikipedia to only present your view?

So, are you game for an open, honest discussion? Or do you still want to play edit warring and other silly games now and for eternity?--Huaiwei 10:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Before I came to notice your activities on Wikipedia, Hong Kong was already on this list. It was listed as a stand-alone section on most lists by countries, and is grouped under categories by countries. Somehow I did wonder who is having an agenda to turn, if not exploit, Wikipedia as the test ground for her/his point of view. It also happens that you are reverting edits of other people if those edits contradict with your point of view, and you refuse to restore to previous versions. Your long-time ally user:SchmuckyTheCat did not even going through the move requests process to change the titles of some articles, and after that you took the advantage to edit "according to what the title says", despite changes to titles are disputed. Who's reluctant to talk? What should be said have been said. Am I not welcoming third-party opinion in times of disputes? I explicitly request for it~!
I don't expect an eventual resolution between you and I would be possible in the near future. But for the time being I do wish you will not ruin this thread of discussions on the autonomous entities of the PRC and Russia, and turn it into another battleground. Please. — Instantnood 10:22, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved content

Electionworld has merged the content of dependent area into this list. — Instantnood 11:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong

I sent an email to Information Services Department, Hong Kong, asking

"May I know is Hong Kong a dependent territory of PRC?"

I received a one-sentence rely from Helen Leung, Publishing and Internet Resource Section, Information Services Department, (email:irc@isd.gov.hk), which says

"Hong Kong should not be considered as a dependent territory of China."

(The bold highlight of "China" is by Helen Leung). With this response from a Hong Kong official, I hope it will resolve the dispute regarding the status of Hong Kong. --Vsion 23:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we already solved the question bu adding the category Special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement in this entry. - Electionworld 06:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

If I were the government official to answer this question, I'll probably give more or less the same answer. No where on legal or constitutional documents says it is or it isn't. What is said is that it is an "inalienable part", a "local administrative region.. enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government", etc. As a government official responsible to answer these enquiries she/he doesn't have to know the definitions of dependent territory. What she/he has to do is to tell Hong Kong is a special administrative region, and what special administrative region is. Anyhow, I agree with Electionworld that this is solved. — Instantnood 07:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

No, I do not think that statement solves this issue. The use of the words "dependency"/"special territory"/"autonomy" etc are not chosen at random, and automatically considered interchangeable. The idea that a "dependency" and a "special territory" as being in a "similar position" as claimed in the article is highly erroneous, and I would call for its removal unless verified by authoritative sources. A dependency is not considered part of the country's core, while a special territory is, and this difference alone is big enough to take precedence over all other factors.

We already have the HK authorities giving a clear-cut reply. Instead of trying to reject official statements (as Instantnood has similarly done over the debate on Victoria City) and giving excuses to explain their responses, I would strongly call for them to be the definitive and final say in issues as crucial to national identity and sovereignty as this.--Huaiwei 16:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I created a seperate article. Electionworld 17:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

There are well established conventions from the point of view of political scientists to tell what are dependent territories, and what are not. There are dozens of states, and probably more in the past, calling themselves Democratic Republic or Democratic People's Republic, but almost none is truly democratic. The same for Victoria City, which is seen as a de facto capital, at least by historians. — Instantnood 17:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Please Instantnood, let's not waste time over this. I undertook to ask isd.gov.hk on this and the official reply is very clear. The high autonomy of Hong Kong is already emphasized in many places, but it does not qualify it as a dependent terroritory. Why don't you create a page call "List of entities with high autonomy" or similarly name? --Vsion 18:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about your academic background.. IMHO to conclude that Hong Kong and Macao are absolutely not dependent territories, you have to proof that i) they are never mentioned as such by any reputable and reliable source, and ii) experts in this field, i.e. political scientists and academics of international relations, generally agree that they are not dependent territories according to the established conventions of the field. Alternatively, if you are going to limit this list to include only territories which governments consider themselves as dependent territories, you will have to enquire the government of each of the territories on the list. — Instantnood 18:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Vision's view is supported by an official statement. Your view is not. If you express concern over his "conclusive evidence", then may I also express concern over your own conclusion that it is a dependency? Who are the political scientists and academics you talk about? Where was the agreement made? I have enough familiarity with political geography to smell a rat in your enthusiastic claims. And I see a repeat in a common problem of yours. Why do you demand vision to send an email to all other governments just because he sent one to HK? The HK issue is hotly contested by the relevant opposing parties, and hence, it is only natural that one of these parties sends an email to the relevant government. Are the other territories under serious debate? If so, may the people who show concern over them do the neccesary. And that includes individuals like yourself who appear to be VERY concerned over the political well-being of all non-independent states on planet earth.--Huaiwei 18:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not demanding anybody to do anything. That was just my opinion on what proof and evidence is needed to make the claim a valid one. It is irrelevant whether the status of other territories are under debate. Meanwhile the definition of dependent territory on Wikipedia remains - " territories that for some reason do not enjoy full independence or sovereignty as states ". — Instantnood 19:17, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

the definition of dependent territory on Wikipedia If the definition on Wikipedia is different than the rest of the world, than Wikipedia fails. One of the wikipedia policies is "don't make shit up". If we have prescribed a definition of dependent territory, rather than described it, we fail. SchmuckyTheCat 20:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It is very apparant, that the official word takes clear precedence, especially in a topic like this. While you claim that "political scientists" and "historians" support your viewpoint, they remain largely as claims despite months of intense discussions. Not surprisingly, they are prompty rejected when solid evidence exists to counter your claims. Your analogy over the names of countries is irrelevant, because we are not in a debate over names. Have you wrote to Kim's government asking him if North Korea is a democracy? In summary therefore, stick to the points at hand, and resist the temptation to deviate and complicate the issue to advance your claims.--Huaiwei 18:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well.. Kim will definitely say yes~! :-P — Instantnood 18:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Have you sent an email to them?--Huaiwei 18:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Instantnood and Huaiwei: Please fight elsewhere. Electionworld 21:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I share Electionworld's view to put Hong Kong and Macao under the category of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement. While "dependencies" are mostly "overseas territories" of sovereign states by nature, all the four "special entities" (Hong Kong, Macao, Åland and Svalbard) are situated near their "motherland". But unlike autonomous entities and component states of federations which also enjoy high degree of autonomy / sovereignty over their own affairs, the four "special entities" are generally recognized by the international community to act as separate entities in certain aspects (normally non-political) of international arena, like economic, social, environmental and cultural affairs. So I think they are something between "dependency" and "autonomou/federal subjects" that can be well fit in a new category. DD Ting 16:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Nah, location in relation to the mother country plays no role in determining the status of a territory. Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are close to the UK but they are not part of it. Yet the French overseas departments scattered all over are considered intergral part of France. --Kvasir 18:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

And Finnmark was a Norwegian colony before being integrated into the Kingdom as a county. :-D — Instantnood 19:06, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

(response to DD Ting's comment at 16:03, September 8) The trouble is that some of these territories with special status are conventionally regarded as dependent territories. They are, according to the definitions of many people, considered and grouped as dependent territories. I agree with Electionworld to move them to a separate list, but as per the Wikipedia policy that different points of view have to be presented, I would prefer to have a section for the PRC on this list, with a pointer to the new list [1], so that information will not be unnecessarily duplicated. — Instantnood 19:06, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Listing the same entity in two list is creating "unnecessarily duplication", especially when they do not qualify in one list. Wikipedia policy may allow for multiple POV, but it does not mean it then claims the earth may be flat because some think it is true either now or since the dawn of mankind. It has been scientifically proven that the earth is not flat. It becomes an established fact. In this case, it has been politically/administratively proven that HK is not a dependency, and it becomes an established fact too. Your claims that it is a dependency according to the "definitions of many people" remains an unverified claim until it is proven true. As far as I know, in fact, most people outside HK has already began to regard it as basically a part of China since 1997. Kindly show me how many people regard HK as a colony of the PRC?--Huaiwei 21:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

How was Hong Kong not a dependency " politically/administratively proven "? :-P Is there any people within Hong Kong considering Hong Kong not part of the PRC since 1997? What's your reasoning to equate colony with dependent territory? Your own point of view asides, if one is truly a geographer and have some background in political geography, she/he should probably know who and how many people are considering Hong Kong, Macao and Svalbard as dependent territory. — Instantnood 07:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

For sure geographical location plays no role in determining the status of a country. My emphasis is that while these special entities are considered by their mother countries as part of the latter, they enjoy certain degree of autonomy in their own affairs, in particular two unique aspects, (i) preservation of their own legal/judicial/economic/etc. systems vis-á-vis their mother countries (determined and guaranteed by international treaty/agreement but not just granted by their mother countries), and (ii) high degree of independent authorities in external relations (e.g. participating in international organizations (in their own capacity) that are mainly formed by countries like Åland in Arctic Council and Hong Kong in WTO and APEC, signing economic/social/cultural/etc. treaties with other countries (not just limited to "local governments" of other countries). It makes them different from other similar "general" autonomous units of countries like Azores, Madeira Islands, Canary Islands, Ceuta, Melilla and the overseas departments of France (Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana and Réunion) and "conventional" dependencies. The present List of countries has already made a clear categorization of different kinds of countries in accordance with the following sequence -

(a) Internationally recognized de jure sovereign states

(b) Generally unrecognized but de facto independent states

(c) Entities recognized by many countries as sovereign but not de facto independent

(d) (Inhabited) Dependent territories

(e) Special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement

(f) UN's protectorate inside the de jure territory of a sovereign state

--DD Ting 02:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The bold highlight of China makes the whole thing confusing, as though the point being emphasized is that it is not China of which Hong Kong is a dependent territory, rather than that Hong Kong is not a dependent territory at all. At any rate, as Instantnood points out, I'm not sure that it is for the government of the PRC to determine whether or not Hong Kong is a dependent territory of China. For us to determine if their answer is decisive, I think we should have to ask the American government if Guam is a dependent territory of the US, the French government if New Caledonia is a dependent territory of France, the British government if Anguilla is a dependent territory of the UK, and so forth. In terms of our list, I'm fairly certain that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, if an inquiry were made, would not be described by the British government as dependent territories. But if we are to accept self definitions as definitive, I don't see why we should take any dependent territories for granted. john k 02:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: I'm fairly certain that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, if an inquiry were made, would not be described by the British government as dependent territories.

A quick research with gov.uk websites shows that they are British crown dependency as stated in the article:

• Isle of Man, please look at 2nd last paragraph of [2]
• Guernsey (Channel Islands), [3]
• also, Guam is listed as incorporated unincorporated territory in [4]

--Vsion 02:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

john has said what we should do if the list is compiled according to self definitions. We should not take "dependencies of the Crown" and (un)incorporated territories for granted that they're self-defined as dependent territories. But back to the basic is this list compiled according to self definitions? — Instantnood 07:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I see that there is a "notes" section at the bottom of the article. Maybe it could be a good place to explain why Hong Kong is not on the list of dependant terrotitories? --Regebro 11:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] France

If it is felt necessary to clarify the position of the overseas "départements" (Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guyane and Réunion), then surely some comment is required on the "collectivités territorials" (Saint Pierre et Miquelon and Mayotte) Skinsmoke 02:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portugal

Surely some comment is required on the autonomous regions of Açores and Madeira, which are not part of the mainland, and have a status which is different from that held by mainland regions Skinsmoke 02:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Move

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.

[edit] four entities which have special positions recognised by international treaty or agreement

I've marked "four entities which have special positions recognised by international treaty or agreement" with {{Verify source}} as no explanation is given. How is it known that there are only four? What is an entity? Svalbard is a part of Norway, in what way is it an "entity"? In what way do these areas have "special positions"? What is the relevance of the treaty/agreement? Unless someone comes up with a reliable source I'll remove the statement. Dagnabit 16:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And why would they then not be dependant territories? I'm putting Åland back until somebody can explain that. --Regebro 11:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the entire talkpage above.--Huaiwei 15:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, done that. The page of four enteties should be deleted, and the enteties on it should be moved back to this page. Any claim that they are not "dependent terrotories" seems to clearly be against WP:NOR, and the list of countreis clearly lists them under dependant territories. --Regebro 11:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Very funny. First, an entry in "List of countries" dosent turn them into dependencies, and the list is itself a case of original research. Next, to add each of those four entries back to dependent terrotory, you have to discuss why there are dependent territories, failing which it is a case of original research too. There are plenty of discussions on why they are not, and these has been supported with evidence. You appear to conveniently ignore them. I challenge you to take this issue up with wikipedians who are citizens from each of the three "motherland" countries involved if finding the relevant discussions is too hard for you.--Huaiwei 12:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not conveniently ignore them. You do. The Peoples of the "motherlands" are also not unbiased, so I challange you to find verifiable unbiased sources for your claims. If notm it is original research, which is against Wikipedia policies. --Regebro 12:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I do? Demonstrate it. I certainly wish users here are geniunely interested in discussing contents at hand factually, rather then being emotionally motivated from past negative experiences with the same individuals.--Huaiwei 12:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you make this an argument about persons, and not about the issues. --Regebro 12:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto to you. Your very participation in this discourse, your obvious display of disruptive editing and the dismissal of previous concensus are reminiscent of past debates involving the same individuals, and does raise eyebrows.--Huaiwei 13:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The debate is indeed very similar. You have no argument, and start editwarring and try to make it into a personal issue instead of discussing the facts. --Regebro 11:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Deja vu. And why does it seem as thou you are suddenly appearing in just about any discourse I am currently engaged in (and systemetically disagreeing with me in practically every one of them)?--Huaiwei 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Does two issues make "just about any"? Again you are insinuating incorrect behaviour. Ad hominem. PLease discuss the issue, not the persons. --Regebro 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming there are only two issues involved? And yes I AM suggesting that you are engaging in inappriopriate behavior by wikistalking. For someone who files a RFC on another wikipedian who dares disagree with him, I hardly think he is in a position to remind others to "discuss issues, not persons".--Huaiwei 17:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I know we have disputes only about two issues. This and Single-party state. Your claim that I created that RfC for other reasons than the ones stated in the RfC are perhaps understandable, but incorrect. --Regebro 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of this Page

In September 2005 it was decided to remove four entries and place them on their own page, List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement, as they were not dependencies (See the section titled Hong Kong on this talk page for a discussion on it). In September 2006, User:Privacy unilaterally moved the 4 entries back from List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement to here. From that point on we have had multiple users removing the entires (or some of them) and other users, mainly User:Privacy, adding them back. User:Privacy has made similar changes on List of Countries (with the changes regularly being removed) and Template:Countries of Europe (with a large editwar occurring). -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 16:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see no such decision above. In any case, what I am missing is a discussion about the split of these territories from the dependant territories. What happened is that [5] "overseas" was changed to dependent" without any further discussion. But I have yet to see any reference to that "dependent" must mean "overseas". Looking through the history of the pages, it seems that this split only comes from the renaming of "overseas" to "dependent" and that they for some reason then are used interchangeably, with no further explanation to why.

As to some of the above discussions, the discussion about whether Hong Kong or a subnational entity or not reaches a clearly incorrect conclusion. A subnational entity with large amounts of independance. Subnational entities are ways of dividing countries into smaller areas. For example, in the US there are the 50 states, in France there are the Departements, in China you have provinces, and in Finland you have kunta (municipalities). Hong Kong however is not just a province like everybody else, but has a spcial status. It is therefore not a subnational entity. Same goes for Åland. It is not a subnational entity, but is a separate country in a form of unique and special union with Finland.

The argument that these are subnational enteties is therefore wrong. This doesn't mean that they are dependant territories, but so far no real argument for this has arrived. Arguments for this, or even better refences for this, should be given. --Regebro 11:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is therefore not a subnational entity. Careful with your therefores. SchmuckyTheCat 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain why that would be non-sequitur? --Regebro 15:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I kind of wonder just what has Regebro been reading. The discussions was hardly about "overseas", especially when discussing about the HK issue. Its about what constitutes an "integral part of the motherland". So if HK has a "Special status", and therefore is not a subnational entity, I suppose every entity on earth which has a special status is also not one? Shall we now elevate every entity with the slightest sense of "autonomy" to "dependency" status? The simplicity of thought in your comment is astounding, and suggests to me that you have not fully reflected or researched on the topic at hand.--Huaiwei 16:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the whole point. There hasn't been much discussion about the overseas thingy. The distinction you are now makeing is a historical artefact of the renaming of "overseas" into "dependent". But nobody has come up with any sources to why this would be the same thing, and why these four territories shouldn't be included in dependant territories, just because they weren't included in overseas territories. I'm not saying they should be included in dependent territories, I'm just saying nobody has come with any verifiable source to why they should not be included, when they according to the definitions give should be included. --Regebro 16:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with overseas. Hong Kong is an integral part of China, by law and treaty. It is not a dependent territory, in fact or in law. It maintains it's special administration because of an international agreement filed with the United Nations. SchmuckyTheCat 16:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Because, my dear Regebro, "overseas" is hardly a factor in determining what is a dependency! Just what distinction are you claiming that I made? And once you again you turn a complete blind eye on the exceedingly extensive discussions that has taken place over the political status of each of the four entities above, not just in this talkpage, but in many articles all over wikipedia (and I thought you have a nack for insisting others arent looking at your references?). These discussions are on why they are not dependencies, and hence should be removed. A new article to list these four entities was later introduced as a compromise, and was included for their similar trait of being recognised by international treaty. If you have an issue with the existance of that article, then go right there are ask for a RfD. But I have to repeat, that getting that article deleted and the question of whether these four entities are dependencies or not are two seperate issues. Is this not clear enough, or do I have to repeat this again?--Huaiwei 16:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Huaiwei, it is totally clear: It has nothing to do with overseas and Because, my dear Regebro, "overseas" is hardly a factor in determining what is a dependency!. Very good. Then we all three agree about that.

The claim that they were included because of the similar trait of being recgnised by international treaty are not correct. They were being included in that list, and excluded from this list, on the basis that the same distintion was done in the list of countries. The debate is still up there, and I have read it all, Huaiwei. However, as is visible from the history of the List of countries, this distinction used to be a distinction between "overseas territories" and "territories recognised by international treaties". Then "overseas territories" was renamed "dependent territories" (diff here: [6]). You are now saying that being overseas or not is not a valid distinction. I agree. So my question is then: what is the distinction?. No answer to this has been forthcoming. Is this question clear?

To summarize: I have seen the following arguments for these countries not being dependent territories:

1. They are subnational entities. As I showed above this is not a valid argument.
2. They are not overseas. You agree that this is not a valid argument.
3. They are separated on the List of countries. But this is in fact also because they are not overseas, and therefore, this is also not a valid argument.
4. They are recognized by international treaties. Well so are many of the dependent territories, so this is also not a valid argument.

So, where are the valid arguments? These are what I ask for, and please Huaiwei, just come with the bloody valid argumenst instead of trying to turn this into a personal fight between you an me. I couldn't care less about you or your fights with Instntood and Privacy and everybody else. This is about the issues. OK? --Regebro 17:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I read the first few lines, and I had enough. My question to you: Are you discussing about the inclusion of four entities in this page, or are you talking about some texts in List of countries?--Huaiwei 17:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As I clearly explained in the answer you don't want to read, both, since they are the same thing. --Regebro 17:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, none of the four should be on list of countries, but that's a discussion for that page, not here. They are not dependent because they are clear parts of their respective nation. Wikipedia does not prescribe definitions to things. It describes things. Hong Kong and Macau, at least, specifically deny that status as a dependent territory and it is not our job to define it some other way. SchmuckyTheCat 18:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This page lists the dependent territories. So does List of countries. Reasonably, these two lists, since they list the same thing, should be the same. Where the discussion is done or not doesn't matter to me, but it is in fact the same discussion, as it is the same lists. So far the discussion has been done here, and I see no reason to move it, as this is where the bulk of the discussion has been had.

In any case, Åland it is not "a clear part of the respective nation" in any reasonable mening. It does have a special status, it has it's own international contracts with for example the European Union and such. I'm surprised by that statement when it comes to Hong Kong, but I do not know the details, which is why I several times have asked for explanations and references. --Regebro 18:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The references should be the international agreements themselves. China claims Hong Kong and Macau have always been it's territory that was under foreign administration for some time. The HK government, at least, has specifically denied the status of dependent territory. That is as close a reference as you can get. SchmuckyTheCat 19:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I find that a reasonable argument (at least if references to this can be given). But this doesn't apply to Åland. So in this case we at a minium stop treating these territories as a homogenous group. I tried to do that before (that's how I got into this, because some page about and referenced this page, but and wasn't on it, and I noticed it had recently been removed. Turns out it hadn't been on here long, but I didn't know that. ;) ). I added back just Åland, and it stayed for a while and then it was removed again. The discussion about Åland above doens't contain any consensus and hardly any argumentation for why it shouldn't be on the list.

It seems to me that the split here orginates in the split on the list of countries and that this split has no basis in these terriories real statuses, but ended up like that for rather historical/hysterical reasons. :) And now people are trying to just preserve that situation because it happens to agree with their POV when it comes to Hong Kong and Macau. And Åland gets caught in the middle. It would be better if we could discuss the issues without pulling in historical edits and instead trying reasoning and verifiable sources, as per Wikipedia procedure. --Regebro 19:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of knowledge of Aland. Bring it up as a seperate subject. SchmuckyTheCat 20:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It already is. See above. I could start another section once again of you want, but it seems kinda silly. --Regebro 20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ok then, nothing more to add. SchmuckyTheCat 20:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I bet the British government and the governments of Isle of Man and Jersey and Guernsey would not confirm the crown dependencies are dependent territories. Same for Australia, Norfolk Island, New Zealand, Cook Islands, Aruba, Netherlands, Greenland, Denmark, United States, Puerto Rico. There are different names, different structures and different relations, from place to place. - Privacy 20:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make pretty much the whole page original research? :) --Regebro 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On what basis are you making this assumption? Did you write to the respective governments you mentioned?--Huaiwei 12:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits of Dec. 2006

I am trying to update this page based on what was decided in September 2005 (that the 4 entities should be on their own list). I think that these changes improve the page and correct information that is contradicted on other pages. As changes to the French and Dutch dependencies will take place in the next few months (Saint-Barthélemy and Saint Martin leaving Guadeloupe & the break up of Netherlands Antilles into Sint Maarten, Curaçao, Bonaire, Saba, and Sint Eustatius - the first two as separate parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the latter three becoming part of the Netherlands), more changes will be made to this page. It will be helpful if we have a stable version of the page to work from when these changes are made. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 16:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian dependencies

The official Norwegian term for these possessions is biland, which is probably best translated as dependency rather than territory. I will make the required changes in the article. -- Nidator 21:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)