Talk:List of sovereign states in the 2000s

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Missing Parts[edit]

Banc du Geyser is claimed by France. Also Anjouan was also defacto independent for a portion of 2008.XavierGreen (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anjouan was in rebellion against the central Comorian government in 2008 but I can't find any source which claims they redeclared independence. I think their inclusion on the original 2008 list was a mistake. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also the TAAF website doesn't list Banc du Geyser as a separate district of the Iles Esparses, but I'll include a note on the entries for France, Madagascar, and Comoros. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know if Banc du Geyser was included in the law incorporating the islands into the TAAF (its possible it was left out by mistake), but i can provide sources stating it is claimed by France.XavierGreen (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puntland and Jubaland[edit]

These entities never declared independence from Somalia, they asserted themselves to be subnational entities under the overall sovieregnty of the Somalian government, i believe only Somaliland is the only case where independence was actually declared.XavierGreen (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puntland doesn't currently claim independence but it did declare what it called a temporary independence from Somalia in 1998. The first time it claimed to be part of a federal Somalia was in 2001 when it adopted its transitional constitution. (Which stands to reason, as there was no government to claim to be under in 1998). You may be right about Jubaland, I'm not sure. Whatever the case the state listed here apparently ceased to exist in 1999 so I'll take it off the list for now. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo[edit]

Neither the CIA World Factbook nor the Office of Insular affairs [1] nor the State Department [2] list these two islands as territories, which leads me to believe that the US is not actively claiming them as dependencies. And since Colombia is the current administrating power, I'm going to take them back off the bullet point list in the US entry. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide you with no less than a dozen documents from US government sources that state that America claims the islands. Ihave done extensive research on the subject. All of the claimants state that they administer the islands,Serranilla is occupied by columiba(there is a columbian garrison there), The Petrel islands are uninhabited and are frequented by all of the claiment states.XavierGreen (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/acquisition_process.htm for a commonly quoted source that includes them as US Possesions.XavierGreen (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but compare that one page on doi.gov to all the pages that contradict it. [3] contains a reference to "the fourteen U.S. insular areas", [4] and [5] list all the insular areas except for those two, [6] says that the U.S. has no remaining disputed claims, and the site has an information page for every single insular area and associated state except for Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23].
I think the omissions here are a lot more telling than the stray references. I'm willing to accept that the United States still technically claims Seranilla and Bajo Neuvo, but it clearly does not treat them as dependent territories. If it did, they would have FIPS codes and be listed in the CIA World Factbook and the State Department's list of dependencies and so on and so on. Go do a search on USA.gov and see the plethora of information that you can find on Baker Island and then compare that to what you can find for Serranilla Bank. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are unincorporated territories of the United States and therefore are dependent territories (as opposed to incorporated territories which are part of the united states proper). Territories of the united states can only either be unincorporated (dependent territories) or incorporated (integral areas) there is no other classification. They do not have FIPS codes because the state department never informed the census beauru to include them in the census. I had emailed the census about this previously. If you contact the DOI and ask them, they will tell you that Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo are us possesions. They are listed as subject to us claims in the factbook under the columbia entry.
For some other sources listing the two banks as us possesions see,
But again, look at the contradictions in the sources. Page 39 of that first document says "The United States claims sovereignty over nine small insular areas, with land masses ranging in size from less than one acre to somewhat more than two square miles. The nine are Palmyra Atoll, Navassa Island, Johnston Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, and Wake Atoll." And then if you read the rest of the document it provides information for each of those nine territories individually but never mentions Serranilla or Bajo Nuevo again. That version of the list, the one with nine uninhabited territories, show up far more often in government sources than the version with eleven.
Do you have a copy of your correspondence with the census? Because unless I have something proving otherwise, I'm going to assume that the reason Serranilla doesn't have a FIPS code is that it's included under Colombia's code. [[28]] Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the email. the only thing i have changed is to remove my real name. Just so you know all FIPS codes are obsolete and they have been replaced with a newer coding system which i refer to in my email. [[29]]XavierGreen (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know oftentimes departmental employees have no idea what the status of the american insular areas are, there are FCC regulations that apply to Bajo Neuvo Bank but not Serranilla bank because the FCC thought it had been ceded along with several other islands to columbia and never bothered to correct their error. Similarly there are other recent regulations and laws that claim that the Marshal islands the other compact states are actual United States possesions rather than independent states. Unless the particular public employee specializes in this sort of thing, they usually are just as clueless about it as the ordinary american (most of whom have no idea what baker island or any of the other territories are let alone the status of American claims to serranilla bank.)XavierGreen (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that every omission of these two territories is a result of some public employee making a mistake? Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them are yes, for example the CIA World Factbook has a policy stating that integral overseas areas such as Hawaii and French Guiana should not get seperate factbook entries, yet they list Palmyra atoll as a overseas dependence when it is a fully integrated area of the united states in which the constitution fully applies and there for should not qualify for its own page. The majority of laws and memos where Bajo Neuvo and Serranilla are not mentioned were made or created several years ago. The most recent memos and laws concerning the minor outlying islands include them such as the proposed legislation i linked to above. Even looking at census data, certain territories were included some years but not others for no particular reason at all. If you ask a random person off the street what kingman reef is, they will have no idea what your talking about as wood most public officials and beuracrats.XavierGreen (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is good and all, but it sounds like a lot of assumptions are being made. The primary sources from the U.S. government are clearly conflicting. Are there any authoratative secondary sources we can use? Because those would be preferrable in this case. If not—given the level of contradiction between sources—, we should just mention that the U.S. possibly claimed them as unincorporated territories, and leave it up to the reader to decide which department or whatever to believe. Whatever the claims might have been, a note needs to be included to clarify that they were not actually under U.S. control in any case. Night w (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just another input: the ISO 3166-2:UM does not include these two territories with the others. Night w (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can provide secondary sources, [[30]] and [[31]]

This government source states that the US regularly patrols the area via the coast guard, footnotes of page 39 of [[32]].

I can also provide government documents stating the date of claim and the claimant if nessesary.XavierGreen (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note the DOI source about disputes found here http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/disputedpage.htm that you quote as evidence of non-us claim also does not mention the fact that navassa and wake are disputed. XavierGreen (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with these sources is they're all so scattershot. It's like you've just been searching on government websites and google books for any mention of "Serranilla Bank" so you can confirm what you've been claiming, rather than trying to judge what the whole body of evidence is saying.
I mean look at what you've shown here in context for a second. You go to the website of the Office Insular Affairs, but you don't refer to the page where they list the territories under their jurisdiction. Instead you go to a page with a historical summary of how these territories were acquired in the nineteenth century. Why is the authoritative list of insular areas buried on that page? Why not on the main list of territories? And if the OIA really does regard Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo as unincorporated territories, then why does the its website have an information page for literally every insular area except for those two?
Or look at that GAO report. It's a document about how the U.S. Constitution applies to the insular areas. And it has an appendix which specifically contains "Detailed information about the histories and current status of each of the smaller insular areas". So why are Serranilla and Bajo Neuvo only mentioned ONCE in that entire document? In a footnote, no less? Why don't they have maps and historical information like the other territories? Why does it say "The United States claims sovereignty over nine small insular areas" instead of "The United States claims sovereignty over eleven small insular areas"?
I understand that government employees occasionally make mistakes, but the sheer number of allegedly accidental omissions kind of goes beyond what I can logically accept. The omission from the CIA World Factbook, the omission from the former FIPS 10-4 standard, the omission from ISO 3166, the omission from the State Department's website, the partial omission from the OIA's website. These are huge gaps in critical sources we're talking about here, and I don't think they are outweighed by stray footnotes, or snippets of draft legislation, or lighthouse websites. The official sources seem to suggest, at the very least, that Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo are not conventionally considered to be territories of the United States.
As far as I'm concerned the current wording of the article accurately describes the situation and doesn't need to be changed. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try to find a map of either of them anywhere, the maps simply dont exist (ive been looking for a good one for 3 years). Like i said before FIPS 10-4 was only created to be use primarily by the census and since the census was never told to count them they never created codes for them. I challenge you to find a state department source that specifically states that the two islands are no longer claimed by the united states. If you look on this document here [[33]] you can see the circumstances in which the island was claimed. Only islands that were bonded under the guano island act are considered to be subject to us soveriegnty, and all islands are considered by the government to be unincorporated (i can provide the supreme court case that created this distinction if nessesary). The bonds to these islands have never been revoked, nor have the claims been ceded to another country. The legislation i showed you is the most current government document to mention a listing of all us territories and these two are included in that list, i do not see how that can be considered to be insignifigant when it is the most current source. (The DOI pages you mention have not been updated in years). As for the history of the islands, practically nothing of note has occure there except for the fact that the last carribean monk seal was sighted there in the 1950's. Serranilla and the Petrel Islands are included on a map in the GOA depicting the carribean region with all of the american possesions in that region labled including Petrel and Serranilla.XavierGreen (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) On maps, you are kind of making my point for me. The maps would exist if the U.S. treated these territories like dependencies. The CIA makes maps of every dependent territory in the world for the world factbook, and the maps in that GAO report were clearly made specifically for that document. There would be no good reason to randomly exclude Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo if they were actually treated the same as, say, Navassa is.
2) You cannot have it both ways with those DOI pages. When we started this conversation you used one of those pages as proof that the United States had an active claim to Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo. But the page which conflicts with that view (the one which is actually a list of territories) is out of date? Why the double standard? And the GAO report you cited is from 1998! How come that page isn't out of date? And furthermore, why would it matter if the pages were out of date if indeed Serranilla's status hasn't changed in decades and nothing of note has ever occurred there? Surely a source from 2007 would be just as valid as a source from 2010 in that case.
3) This page [34] from the State Department purports to be a comprehensive listing of every dependent territory and area of special sovereignty in the world. It includes every colony, every associated state, every uninhabited rock claimed by one state or another. Now, this page doesn't specifically include an explicit renunciation of American sovereignty, (And it's very strange that you're requesting that from me. Under what circumstances do you imagine such a page would come to exist?) but Serranilla Bank and Bajo Neuvo are clearly absent from that list. Do you not see how significant this absence is? Do you honestly think that the U.S. State department would exclude two American territories from its own list of dependencies? Seriously, that is such a tremendous logical gap. You can't say that this list doesn't matter but some random draft piece of legislation does. That's completely giving undue weight to that source. Orange Tuesday (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason i ask for the document showing its not, is that other similar claims all have documents showing that they were ceded or abandoned. There are no documents of this type for Serranilla or Peterel. There are state department documents showing that the Western Triangles were abandoned in favor of Mexico, documents showing that the Swan islands were ceded to honduras, that the american lease of the corn islands were terminated. Every other claim in the area has a document of some sort showing that they are no longer claimed, these two groups do not and still appear as claimed in a wide variety of government documents.XavierGreen (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heres a few more documents they appear in [[35]], heres an older source [[36]].XavierGreen (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So a "wide variety of government documents" includes:
  • an information page on the OIA's website about the various ways to claim an insular area.
  • a piece of unpassed legislation from last year introduced by the non-voting representative from American Samoa
  • a footnote in a GAO report.
  • an interoffice memo about eligibility for a certain type of immigrant status.
but does not include:
  • The CIA World Factbook (and all related CIA documents, e.g. World Maps)
  • The State Department's list of dependent territories.
  • The OIA's list of territories under its jurisdiction
Do you not see how one of these groups of sources is somewhat more relevant than the other? Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are listed as being us minor outlying islands by the USGS as well, [[37]], [[38]], [[39]], [[40]]. They are also listed under the Columbian page of the CIA World Factbook as being claimed by the United States. It is possible these territories are not under the Jurisdiction of the OIA and remain private property. Not all external territories are subject to the control of the OIA (virtually all of Palmyra is private property and not subject to OIA jurisdiction). That legislation was also reintroduced this year. The OIA page states that Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo are claimed by the usa and describes how they were claimed, not how to go about claiming an island.XavierGreen (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a state department document stating that the US claims the islands, see the footnotes of page 8 of this source [[41]]XavierGreen (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure the factbook mentions Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo but it mentions them as territorial disputes, it doesn't give them their own entry. That's the exact same type of wording that's currently being used on this list.
And again, why do you keep going for footnotes in random documents? Are you just searching for every instance of "Serranilla" you can find on a US government website? Because that is not a reasonable way to do research. 02:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
See, I think if you look closely at the USGS stuff you just linked I think it actually supports keeping the page how it is. If you look at the other territories, they've all considered a "county" for the purposes of that list. So "Navassa Island" is one county, "Baker Island" is another, and so on. All nine of them are listed as counties, all nine of them have separate entries as "Civil" entities, and all nine counties are listed under the civil entry for the United States Minor Outlying Islands. But Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo? Not counties. And not listed as even being IN a county. They just get a blank entry in that column. I think again that shows that while these two islands may be claimed by the United States, they are not administered like the other dependencies are. Orange Tuesday (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is Baker island and the others are not counties. You seem to be using [sythesis] to equate the noninclusion of the American claim on several documents as proof that it is not claimed. As for research i have looked at all of these documents before. See[[42]].XavierGreen (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, look, I didn't say they were literally counties, I said that the USGS used the word "county" as a generic label for a low-level administrative entity and that all nine of the conventionally-listed territories were described as being "counties" for the purposes of that list, whereas Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo were not.
Like look. Baker Island has two entries in the USGS right? This one [43] is Baker Island the territory. It is designated as being in the "Civil" class, which means it is a legal entity (or, to use the exact wording on that site: "A political division formed for administrative purposes"). Every administrative division in the United States has an entry within this class. Counties, parishes, states, territories, whatever. They all get one.
Baker Island's second entry [44] is Baker Island the island. It is designated as part of the "Island" class, and it is a geographic feature within Baker Island the territory. The latter thing is the thing you can stand on, but the former thing is the actual political entity which the United States has sovereignty over, and it's that entity that we list on this page. The same is true of Howland, Jarvis, Johnston, Kingman, Midway, Navassa, and Wake.
But now look at Bajo Nuevo. It only has one entry in the USGS [45] and that is not within the "Civil" class. It is within the "Bar" class. The geographical feature is on there, but there is no corresponding legal entity. And again it's the legal entities, the dependencies themselves, that we're actually listing here.
I think this link actually illustrates what I'm talking about really clearly. There's some kind of territorial claim over these islands, but they are not actually administered like dependent territories. Orange Tuesday (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you are asserting is impossible under constitutional law, an area claimed by the united states in which the consitution does not apply is an unincorporated territory. Only states and areas subject to an organic act can be considered to be incorporated territory and integral parts of the united states. In other words if it is claimed by the united states and does not have an organic act it is an unincorporated territory, there are no other territorial statuses under US law. All sources including the USGS state that the islands were claimed under the guano island act, and the Insular Cases state that islands under the act are to be considered us possesions. XavierGreen (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But if this legal entity exists, why isn't it listed under the USGS? Why didn't it have a FIPS code? Why isn't it in the ISO 3166 standard? Why doesn't it have its own entry in the CIA Factbook? Why is it omitted from that State department list of dependencies? Orange Tuesday (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I just find it really difficult to believe that the only places we can find official references to these territories are in these random corners of government websites. It doesn't make any sense. No other territories get so completely ignored and forgotten like these ones allegedly do. What makes them so special? Orange Tuesday (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In reality even if you ask them, they wont tell you as is with many strange quirks of the government. Ive emailed most of the agencies in question about the issue several times in fact, and only the census has given me concrete responses. I cannot explain why it is omitted from the State Department list of entities (it is included in several much older lists of territories published by the state department) yet included in other documents, ill email them about it but i have in the past and recieved no response. It doesnt have a FIPS code because the census was never told to enumerate the islands (though they did seem to know what they were). I have queried the ISO and am awaiting a response, and have done so in the past to the CIA with the response from them that they would bring it up with the yearbook staff (they did eventually add the claims to the columbia page as ive said before). The fact of the matter is that you cannot assume anything from the ommision of the information from these pages other than the fact that the information is not there under [[46]]. The various geographic features such as island and reef names are included under the main usgs pages of each territory.XavierGreen (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're basically saying "Yes, all those lists of territories omit Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo but they're wrong because there is bad communication in the government." and your source for that assertion is that you have emailed the government a few times and found it difficult to get a straight response out of them. That is pretty much the definition of original research.
I am not using that as a basis for my assertion that the US claims the islands. Im telling you what you will get if you ask them.XavierGreen (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the bottom line for me. The State Department and the CIA World Factbook are reliable, clear, and definitive sources when it comes to the official position of the US Government. The Factbook clearly lists the dependent territories of the United States as "American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Wake Island" [47] and the State Department lists the same fourteen territories. [48]. We have no reason to assume that either of those lists are incomplete. I'm going to take those versions as official, use them as the basis for the bullet point list of dependent territories in the United States entry on this page, and continue noting the disputed status of Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo right after that. I think that is completely reasonable, and will give any reader of this page a complete picture of the extent of the US's sovereignty. Orange Tuesday (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2010

(UTC)

You have no reason to assume they are complete, that sir is [[49]]. I have provided you with several sources from the CIA, State Department, and other agencies that all state the islands are us possesions. You have not provided any us government source stating they are not, only assumptions.XavierGreen (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is that synthesis, exactly? The CIA World Factbook is a reliable source used across Wikipedia, and it contains a list of the dependent territories of the United States. I am using that source to compile a list of dependent territories of the United States. And I am confirming that list against a second reliable source, which contains an identical list of dependent territories. What conclusion am I inserting into the text that is not supported by the sources? Orange Tuesday (talk) 06:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You assume they are not territories because they are not on the list, i can provide a source from the same website stating that they are while you can provide no source specifically stating that they are no longer subject to american soveriegnty claims. The factbook also states that Svalbard, Jan Mayan, and Palmyra Atoll are dependent territories positions that both international law and wikipedia do not hold.XavierGreen (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you have a source doesn't mean that it automatically trumps everything else. If one source on the State Department's website is specifically a list of dependent territories and the other source is a footnote in an report about Jamaica's maritime claims, the former is obviously going to be more relevant for the purposes of this page. And if the two sources disagree, it only makes sense to go with the information contained in the former. Orange Tuesday (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can you cite a source that says absolutley nothing about a topic?XavierGreen (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well what do you expect it to say? "THE FOLLOWING AREAS ARE NOT UNITED STATES TERRITORIES:"? No, it's a reasonable assumption to make that if someone makes a list like this that they intend it to be complete for its stated scope. The intro to the State Department's list says: "The Bureau of Intelligence and Research maintains a list of Independent States in the World and a list of Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty." It's reasonable to take from this that the list is supposed to be a complete list of dependencies recognized by the United States. I mean, really, this isn't exactly an open ended endeavour here. There are a finite number of these territories floating around. And the view that it's supposed to be complete is certainly consistent with the content of the list. There are no other glaring omissions besides Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo. Orange Tuesday (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But my point is that these claims are outstanding. I have provided you with the documents under which they were claimed, there are no documents stating those claims have been revoked and i have shown you documents that state they are still claimed. Other territories similar to this one have documents showing that they reverted to other nations and that the claims are not active, where are the documents showing that the US has abandoned its claim?XavierGreen (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it seems that great points have been made on either side. We have both references that include them, and ones that exclude them from the list of dependencies. Neither collection can be simply ignored, and none of us can say which is "correct" or "better" (or, for that matter, presume to know the reason behind omissions or discrepancies)—we can only know what is plainly written on paper, and let the reader decide. We haven't been able to find a document of renouncement—which is, as Xavier said, crucial if the claim was made in the first place—, which suggests that most likely under a purely legal context the claim still exists. However, the claim is quite obviously not actively pursued at present, and—given the level of contradiction between sources—is in many cases completely overlooked. Because these territories only appear on some official lists, mentioning them at the end (i.e. not part of the bulleted segment), along with a note on the conflict between sources, would be the best method. Can we all agree on that? Night w (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Since this thread has come up in various other discussions i might add that there actually is a list that the Department of Insular Affairs keeps of former territories of the United States which were ceded after 1900. See here[[50]]. So there is actually an official government list of areas that were formally claimed as US territories but no longer are. Serranilla and the Petrels are not on this list of former territories so it is quite clear that the DOI considers them to still be American possesions.XavierGreen (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands Antilles[edit]

Someone replaced the Netherlands Antilles with Curaçao and Sint Maarten. The dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles happened in October 2010. In the 2000s (2000-2009) the countries that formed the Kingdom of the Netherlands were still Aruba, Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles. I'm gonna change it back. Erik10081989 10:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed[edit]

Palestine is not a sovereign state and many references indicate this. The entry should be deleted from this article, but until then the disputed/no source tags are appropriate. This is currently under discussion on the Dispute Resolution board. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of sovereign states in the 2000s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of sovereign states in the 2000s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_sovereign_states_in_the_2000s&oldid=1210095316"