![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I fail to see why these entities do not belong on this list.
AusLondonder ( talk) 02:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with AusLondonder. A lot of previous discussion was at a time where these entities were much less established, and when far fewer independent sources confirmed their status. Now, there are
Wikipedia:Rs confirming that these entities are unrecognized countries (for example, the three sources cited on this page
/info/en/?search=Donetsk_People%27s_Republic.
Wikipedia:Consensus elsewhere, especially on their own pages (see also here
/info/en/?search=Luhansk_People%27s_Republic) treats them as "unrecognized state"s. As for this page
Wikipedia:Consensus can change and most recent discussion on the topic just points to old discussion/consensus, which, as I have said, is outdated. --
HighFlyingFish (
talk)
20:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Simply saying that it is a state is insufficient. We need to be able to demonstrate that they are often considered to meet the declarative theory of statehood. Please cite where relevant sources explicitly state that the two entities pass the test of the declarative theory of statehood. Kahastok talk 22:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to read through the latest sources yet, so I have not yet formed an opinion on whether they should be added or not, but one difficulty is that it's not even clear what should be added: Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic or Novorossiya_(confederation). The former made a "Declaration of State Sovereignty of New Russia" last December [3] so the People's Republic don't appear to consider themselves to be sovereign any longer. TDL ( talk) 00:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
If we aren't going to put Donetsk and Luhansk in, then we at least need to have them in the Excluded Entities section, and clearly explain what conditions they'd need to meet to be included, and currently don't meet. Otherwise, we'll keep having this discussion. --
HighFlyingFish (
talk)
20:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
...this edit comment. The long descriptions in the tables are hard to read - all this is doing is pulling out the ONLY comparable data-point to make it easier for readers. Why make readers wade through all those walls of text, when you can add a small column. Oncenawhile ( talk) 21:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I recall we had a large discussion a while a go about whether states like Montenegro which are very new UN members with whome not everyone has yet established diplomatic ties count as unrecognized. I don't think having a "UN recognition" column is a good idea because I'm concerned that we may reopen that can of worms in doing so. The exact question was along the lines of: If two states are both UN members and have never had any diplomatic relations of any sort, do they recognize each other? I think in the end Consensus was that it doesn't matter, because no relations means no source saying that they DON'T recognize each other, but if we make statements as to number recognizing, then we have to sort that out again. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 01:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Please note that I have protected this file, used in the lead of this article, on Commons. The protected version matches the current version of the article (as of 08:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)). If substantive changes are wanted to the file, I will expect to see a consensus for that change to be established at this page or the file's talk page.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 08:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Should we add the unrecognized Principality of Sealand or is that to frivolous a situation to list with these ones? Arnoutf ( talk) 18:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Could someone, please, explain exactly why Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh and Somaliland are considered as states with limited recognition, while the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics are not? Donetsk and Lugansk P.R. have engaged in international relations (even if it's only with South Ossetia, but Somaliland not even that), since February 2015 they've had stable borders, populations and governments. Like it or not, but that's the reality. I May not particularly like the existence of Northern Cyprus or Transnistria but they exist. Now, given the circumstances and if no further and reasonable explanation is given, I'll take the initiative to remove Somaliland since it has less statehood conditions than the 2 other ones I mentioned. It's a matter of being coherent. Greetings! Viet-hoian1 ( talk) 22:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
...there are three other territories that have unilaterally declared independence and are generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria for statehood but have not been recognized by any states: Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland.)
A quick search reveals this
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=20718322&AN=108554586&h=2yLluQ9USyL%2bqrCi5QJVc4nyzOcvVycbWvgJRA7DR%2bRtRbulSfYzP%2byYExydgXcINKPIW1ATxkv6Vyaf1NMwZw%3d%3d&crl=c&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d20718322%26AN%3d108554586 ("in the context of Russia's political, military, and financial support for self-declared "people's republics" in Donetsk and Luhansk"). And this
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/doi/10.1111/1467-8322.12108/epdf "What remains of primary importance in de facto states is the performative nature of the state and the degree of cohesion it creates by changing the facts on the ground. The Donetsk People’s Republic declared its inde-pendence on 7 April 2014 and held a referendum scarcely a month later on 11 May 2014. Though the results of this ref-erendum were predictably in favour of independence from Ukraine, the fact that it occurred is what matters. After the referendum, the basic conditions of statehood can be fulfilled." and further "Post-referendum, the conflict is no longer between Ukraine and individuals or groups challenging its authority, but between two polities, one rec-ognized, the other not. Both see themselves as sovereign. According to international law, both are sovereign if they can successfully exercise authority in the contested territo-ries – this is what is now being tested. A few flags, occu-pied buildings, and a made-to-order referendum do much to legitimize an otherwise tenuous claim to statehood." I'll need more time to read through these and be sure that I understand their full argument (the articles are Ukraine, International Law, and the Political Economy of Self- Determination. and Separatism redux: Crimea, Transnistria, and Eurasia's de facto states respectively), but it certainly indicates scholarly coverage. --
HighFlyingFish (
talk)
18:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Another thing: We have WP:RS showing that South Ossetia has recognized both the LPR and the DPR. Isn't that, by itself sufficient for inclusion, since that means they are already partially recognized? -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 21:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I have just finished catching up on the discussions previously held on this issue. So clearly the jury is still out weather or not the two states have met the declarative theory or not. Weather a formal "declaration" has happened or not seems to be the sticking point, and the editing community at large has not reached a consensus on this matter. Fair enough.
Can we all at least agree that the proposed "states" have now obtained a fixed border at the ceasefire line that essentially has remained unchanged for months now? As far as I can see they now satisfy the criteria for the four following points: A defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states. Due to their aforementioned fixed borders with a population that is resident in their cities (and relations they now have with South Ossetia, as was mentioned in previous discussions), despite the two "states" possibly not having actually declared such independence. In theory that would mean if such a elusive source were found then they could be added to the list, or if they happen to declare independence at some future point then they could correspondingly be added to this list. Is this something that the majority can agree on? That after all of this passage of time they would now fulfill the four criteria points, if relevant sources are obtained that is? Please bear in mind I am not asking for these "states" to be included now, just asking if now they 'could' be included. Thoughts? Wiz9999 ( talk) 00:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Somaliland gained a full sovereignty there fore why international community has not recognized yet? Shakir-essa ( talk) 23:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be abused as a political tool, but to reflect reality. The reality is that Kiev has no control of these regions, but they're also doesn't seem to a category where they might fit in at the moment.
To avoid Wikipedia being used for political reasons (as is now the case by ignoring these states. Both are recognized by at least one other non-UN member anyway)
They should be mentioned, lest Wikipedia loses touch with reality. An Encycplodia should tell it like it is. Not like a certain WANTS it to be.
Its articles should also describe in an objective manner the situation in both of these new-born "republics"; Because with Russian backing, Ukraine is as likely to regain those territories as France does Algeria or Belgium does Congo.
TL:DR Wikipedia should reflect reality as it is, not as certain political organisation wish it was. Othewise it loses credibility hard
78.23.197.184 ( talk) 13:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree it would be useful to have a section about areas that claim to be states and control territory, but aren't cited as sovereign in academic sources. It would be a good compromise in the debate that comes up again every month on here, and would reduce confusion among readers by addressing these high profile cases. GeoEvan ( talk) 01:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments? TDL ( talk) 23:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I like it and have incorporated a version of it into the article. Let's see what others say. We spell out ISIL though, not Islamic State which suggests they are a global state. Legacypac ( talk) 05:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
A large number of Sunni Arab states broke their diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, in some cases completely breaking also commercial ties and de-facto making Iran persona non-grata in the eyes of Sunni Arab states (as well as Djibouti). Some see this as synonimous with the declaration of war, while others consider this removing Sunni Arab recognition of Islamic Republic's legitimacy. A similar thing happened in Iran, whose government hasn't begun the diplomatic rift, but hinted that the Saudi regime is not legitimate in their eyes [5], following the radical discourse of the Saudis. We should therefore consider putting Iran and Saudi Arabia here in light of this fresh radical development as they factually seized mutual recognition. Opinions? GreyShark ( dibra) 09:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The Canadian govt withdrew diplomatic relations with Iran a few years ago, but everyone still agrees Iran is a country, just object to its present rulers. No changes required. Legacypac ( talk) 22:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks
Spirit Ethanol (
talk)
21:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
An edit war over which infobox to use on the DPR and LPR pages has been ongoing for several months now. In an attempt to remedy the situation i have opened up a discussion and request for comment here Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic#Infobox, your opinions and comments on the issue would be much appreciated. XavierGreen ( talk) 06:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of states with limited recognition. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Should the Donetsk and Luhansk republics be added to this? I think one has zero recognition, and the other has recognition but a non-UN member.--BLACK FUTURE ( tlk2meh) 23:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh okay cool, just curious is all (haven't touched the article, not pushing or anything). the theory states it had to have a defined territory (they don't they claim the entire oblasts but only control within the fluctuating frontlines); permanent population (many are IDPs, citizenship and passports arent universal, all are still citizens of Ukraine); a government (I think the DNR would qualify for this); international relations (DNR does qualify for this if you count South Ossetia).
So that being said, if DNR citizenship continued to extend, and its borders were defined by Minsk II(I) / a future Ukrainian constitutional amendment, it would qualify for the article?--BLACK FUTURE ( tlk2meh) 18:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Separate question, but since South Ossetia's borders continue to change (in what is being described as a 'creeping annexation') would it no longer qualify for the declarative model? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Future ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#RFC:_Lists_of_countries_and_territories.2C_List_of_sovereign_states.2C_List_of_active_rebel_groups_and_ISIL has an RFC potentially affecting this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac ( talk • contribs) 21:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Due to a similarity in topics, editors here are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox.
CMD (
talk)
13:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This section has multiple issues I would like to discuss. A part of this section claims that entities like the Donetsk People's Republic are simply rebel groups that control territory and declare independence,however there are no sources for this claim next to this piece or anywhere at all.Could anyone please find a source for this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.142.1 ( talk) 12:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
My assertion here is that we should drop the requirement for sources to say that an entity meets "the declarative theory" of sovereignty, and simply require that reliable sources say that an entity is "sovereign". There is no good reason to privilege a particular description/understanding of sovereignty, when the concept itself challenged and complex. This is not to reject the idea that entities require multiple, verifiable, independent sources. -- Super Nintendo Chalmers ( talk) 21:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
No-one of the links provided prove that there are UN members not recognizing the People's Republic of China. The links only prove that the PRC does not want diplomatic relations with those who recognize the ROC. The PRC should be deleted of the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.111.252 ( talk) 11:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of states with limited recognition. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy I did not add original research, would the edit work better if I add sources such as this? Many thanks Kzl55 ( talk) 22:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: I was able to access the URL that the IP added (here http://www.ncnk.org/resources/briefing-papers/all-briefing-papers/dprk-diplomatic-relations). If you want I can post a screenshot of what's on there. Basically its a map of countries "with which the DPRK has diplomatic relations". "countries that have formally broken their relations with North Korea remain blank". Recognition is not explicitly mentioned as far as I can see (@2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:c021:ec7d:fbd6:3ac6 could you quote the part of the reference that talks about lack of recognition, as opposed to lack of bilateral relations?). The list of countries that don't have bilateral relations with the DPRK from that map is rather broad, including, in addition to the usual suspects, countries like Ecuador and Lesotho. If consensus is that lack of bilateral relations is the same as non-recognition, then I can list them all out for the benefit of people for whom the URL doesn't work, and add them to the list, but I think consensus is that lacking bilateral relations is different from non-recognition so this source isn't really relevant to this page. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 03:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC) @ Iryna Harpy: and @ 2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:c021:ec7d:fbd6:3ac6:. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 03:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Usually grouped with micronations, and legally questionable since its territory is man-made, but doesn't the Principality of Sealand meet the declarative criteria? It controls territory, de facto tolerated by neighbouring states for about 50 years now, people do live there, it has a government (although the Prince doesn't live there himself), and it has had relations with other states in the past (connected to the 1978 hostage crisis). The difference between Sealand and other micronations based on a claim of secession is that Sealand's territory was abandoned in international waters at the time it was set up. If it isn't properly terra nullius, that is only because it is a man-made structure. I think that's enough to put it in the same category as Somaliland. -- 79.22.131.211 ( talk) 23:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I mean by definition the statehood of every state on this list is disputed. We've discussed Sealand and other edge cases like the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics a lot on the talk pages, and what the current consensus has come to is basically that at least some academic sources (peer reviewed journals, etc.) need to refer to it as a state OR another UN member must recognize it. Recognition by non-UN members, or references in more casual sources have been rejected (e.g. a lot of journalists call ISIL a state, but ISIL is not included on this list). Personally I think the bar is unnecessarily high, but that is what discussion has yielded. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 02:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Because of the South Ossetian name change referendum, 2017 should we change South Ossetia's entry to Republic of South Ossetia–the State of Alania? -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 00:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Google translate says ""1. The Republic of South Ossetia - Alania State - a sovereign democratic legal state created as a result of self-determination of the people of South Ossetia.
The names of the Republic of South Ossetia, and the State of Alania are equal. " I'm not able to think of another country that has two equal names, but even the referendum seems to give State of Alania as either an alternative name or a hyphenated name. [1] along the lines of Russian Republic of North Ossetia–Alania Legacypac ( talk) 07:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Should we be using the WP:COMMONNAME or the official names of these entities? The version proposed by @Beshogur (and frankly the current version also) is currently inconsistent on this, both within entries (Republic of Artsakh vs. Karabakh) and between entries (Karabakh vs. Republic of China vs. Republic of South Ossetia (that recently voted to change its name to Republic of South Ossetia–the State of Alania, see 2017 in South Ossetia). I think we should use the official names in all cases, as those are the ones used by the entities themselves, and those are unambiguous and consistent (whereas unofficial names can often refer to geographic regions and outright mislead, for example Taiwan claims territory outside of Taiwan). We could also follow the List of sovereign states and provide both names (e.g. Nagorno-Karabakh – Republic of Artsakh[Note 25]). Also please see the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Discuss controversial edits and establish consensus before reinstating them. Thank you! -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 16:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm increasingly warming to the convention in List of sovereign states where both are given, as that would give our readers the most information in the most compact manner. If we don't do that, I think the neutral and unambiguous thing to do is to use the entity's own official name(s) for themselves. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 18:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Nine Arab countries, namely Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, the Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen, have all cut their diplomatic ties with Qatar recently. Should we now include Qatar in the list of UN member states not recognised by at least one UN member state? Bobbie73 ( talk) 06:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
New countries are rarely formed so it's not a big issue. Answer is... it depends. [1] and Diplomatic recognition Legacypac ( talk) 09:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Should we include Wa State in the list? I reckon they are very similar to Somaliland. 2001:8003:8600:EF00:88D5:9EC7:ADC9:5D15 ( talk) 13:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
About recognition of a state [6], Recognition of States in International Law and Recognition of states and governments in international law. Reading for someone.-- Yopie ( talk) 23:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm currently reading the "De facto statehood in Eurasia: a political and security phenomenon" article discussed above and it offhandedly mentions the following: "The number of recognitions itself can vary from dozens (e.g. the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Kosovo or Taiwan) to several (e.g. Abkhazia, South Ossetia) to one (e.g. the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is recognized only by Turkey, and Free Kashmir, which is recognized only by Pakistan)." If Pakistan recognizes Free Kashmir then it is, by definition, a state with limited recognition and ought to be included. The quote above is the article's only mention of Free Kashmir and the author doesn't elaborate upon his claim. Is it accurate? Should we include Free Kashmir recognized by Pakistan? -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 09:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of states with limited recognition. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Please note that there is an RFC at WikiProject Countries that editors of this article may be interested in. Kahastok talk 19:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Elsewhere on Wikipedia (including in the North Korea article itself and the Foreign Relations of North Korea), eight UN members are cited as not recognizing North Korea as a state: Argentina, Botswana, Estonia, France, Iraq, Israel, Japan, and the United States. Recommend editing the North Korea section to reflect those eight countries do not recognize North Korea.
We must add these areas. Beshogur ( talk) 11:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Got the article but haven't had a chance to read it yet. That said [7] it looks like there's a new development on the ground that may render this article moot. We may potentially have to add Malorossiya but this seems like it supersedes the two people's republics, assuming this report is accurate. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 20:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I have to admit, based on the article's text I'm not sure it in itself is cause to add them. Some pertinent quotes: "But if the de-escalation process, launched in Minsk, is implemented, even though with difficulty, the Donetsk and Lugansk republics will have a real chance to build statehood of their own within their present boundaries. There are no guarantees that this process will be successful." and "The Donbass breakaway territories are now often compared to Transnistria. But even compared with Crimea, where the movement for joining Russia was headed by leaders who had made successful political or business careers after Ukraine had gained independence (Sergei Aksyonov,Alexei Chaly and Vladimir Konstantinov), Donbass lacks experienced politicians. Thus currently different options, ranging from Chechnya and Serbian Krajina to the Transnistrian experience, may be possible.". Like the article I found a while back, Donbass statehood is described as a thing being built/tested not a thing unrecognized but already in existence. Based on these quotes the author wants to draw a clear distinction between the Donbass PRs and the other entities he analyzes. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 10:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Caspersen, Nina (2016).
"Making Peace with De Facto States". The Annual of Language and Language of Politics and Identity. 10: 7–18.
ISSN
1805-3769. Archived from
the original (PDF) on 2017-09-01. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help) — «Moreover, new contested territories that could be described as de facto states have emerged, most notably the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republics in Ukraine. These two newest additions to the universe of de facto states have started to create some of the trappings of statehood, although the extent of „indigenous roots‟ is still debatable" --
Yelysavet (
talk)
03:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
It is fine to say in the Donestk page they declared independance, but no one has ever recognized or agreed to that. I'd want to see a few good reliable sources - more than say they cail the criteria. Legacypac ( talk) 22:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
I'm confused as to why Armenia is included on this list. Supposedly Pakistan does not recognise Armenia as a country, but this seems to be more in the category of symbolic gestures or "not having diplomatic relations" (e.g. US-North Korea, etc.), rather than analogous to (e.g.) Nagorno-Karabakh or Somaliland. In fact every other country on this list involves a territorial dispute. Additionally, the sources are pretty poor quality and both appear to be translations. Ivar the Boneful ( talk) 10:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Why is the Republic of Logone not included in this page? I understand that as it's situation as part of a warzone, much like Donetsk and Luhansk, could exclude it from the main list, but surely it should at least be given mention in the "excluded entities" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Firstly, @ Yelysavet:, this is a breach of an active arbitration remedy described at the top of this page. You should self-revert before you are reported and blocked. Note that per the arbitration remedy, no warning is required before you are blocked for breaking the arbitration remedy.
No, it has nothing to do with the Israel-Palestine issues that the arbitration remedy is aimed at. Yes, it's a completely crazy situation. I objected to these rules at the time, but we are subject to them.
Now, what's the objection?
I find this new section as a whole is discussing South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, Transnistria or Artsakh. But this list includes South Korea, China, Cyprus and Armenia as well. In the context of this list, the new section is inaccurate and fails to make any useful point. It should not be included in this article. Kahastok talk 18:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Catalonia is preparing to declare independence on monday [11], if that happens will Catalonia be added to this list? or will it be treated the same as Donetsk and Luhansk? 70.56.180.215 ( talk) 00:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Dutch TV claims he called for a dialogue with Spanish government as Catalonia now has the right to independence - but not actually declared it. So we need mainstream agreement that what he said was indeed declaration of independence and not a "tactical withdrawal" (BTW quote of BBC: "seeks independence talks" CNN: "delays split to pursue talks" so not really declaration of independence on either source) Arnoutf ( talk) 17:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The Catalonian parliament has voted for independence: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/europe/catalonia-independence-spain/index.html Ladril ( talk) 13:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Put the Catalan Republic in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.153.169.187 ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
why Rojava, Catalan, Luhansk and Donetsk not in any list? E.F Edits ( talk) 16:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of states with limited recognition has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To whom it may concern: Greetings, editors, I would like to add the Catalan Republic to the 'Non-UN member state not recognised by any state' section, as it had declared independence on 27 Oct, 2017. 221.126.246.2 ( talk) 23:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of states with limited recognition has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Catalonia needs to be on it. I'm just saying, and I'm not Catalonian, but I'm just saying. Minecraftfan04 ( talk) 21:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
No it fails both the theories of what makes a sovereign state Legacypac ( talk) 21:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Its notable enough that there should be an explanation of why it is *not* on the page, even if it won't be on the list.
Those are puppet states created by Russia in order to prevent development of Moldova and Ukraine. Thus Russia does not recognise their independence, it wants to influence Moldova and Ukraine, but does not want really see these three countries independent. Why we are writing only about Transnistria and not about two other puppet states? Mechanism is the same. Abhazia and Osetia is a little bit different story, there Russian really wants to pull apart those lands from Georgia. -- 217.105.24.253 ( talk) 20:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
They have declared a Catalan Republic, I would personally advocating waiting for at least 24 hours to see if there will be a practical implementation as this article only includes administrations that have physical territory etc. PompeyTheGreat ( talk) 13:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Has now got an article at Catalan Republic (2017). Probably best to hold off at this stage, but its statehood is being discussed by politicians around the globe. At the moment is mainly notable for being not being recognized by various entities, which perversely does give some credence to legitimacy. The main reason for not including is that the "republic" is likely to pretty short lived, although somewhat longer than the Catalan State (1934). --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Granted that no other country has recognised it yet (and it may well stay that way) but we do have a section specifically for countries that are not recognised by any UN member state. I am unsure why it does not merit inclusion in that. I apologise if this is covered above and I have missed it. What is/are the criteria that are required for inclusion which Somaliland meets but Catalonia lacks? Surely that is a reasonably low bar? Arnoutf has suggested 4 criteria but it seems that three of those are met (although maybe not for long) and the final one is arguable. Are those the correct criteria? Please can somebody summarise as I don't seem to be the only person who is confused by this? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure. What makes a sovereign state is not clear cut, but our page lays it out pretty well. Scholars nearly all agree Somalialand is the classic case of a dejure State that simply lacks any official international recognition but in every other way exercises sovereignty as a state. It has a defined territory, government, and population. For many years it has exercised exclusive police/military control (a monopoly on violence) over it’s territory completely independent from Mogadishu based players. It even operates international trade offices and representations that are embassies in all but name (Taiwan does similar). It has managed to attain all the trappings of statehood because Somalia is a failed state and Somalialand is the best politically organized, least poor, safest part of Somalia. Somalialand lacks international recognition from other states because there is no real benefits (military, economic, political etc) to any other state in recognizing them. There are simply downsides - like emboldening amd setting precedent for separatists in other countries and or their neighbors and friends. Major powers and adjoining states prefer the status quo of a peaceful stable Somolialand over the alternative of recognized independance that starts open war there. For example the US would not want to recognize Somalialand which might embolden Scottish or Quebec or Puerto Rico independence, which would weaken the US and it’s friends. The other two “comtries” listed are long standing frozen conflicts where no recognized State has recognized them but the states exist on the ground. None of these three line up with the facts in Catalon - its not a stable lomg term sitaution at all. Spain clearly has significant military control. Spain may control the government by disbanding the regional govt. Spains allies and neighbors will not be supporting an independant state either. Legacypac ( talk) 22:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Impru20: have you got an opinion ? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 15:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
References
This was a good solution to the question why not listed. It was reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_states_with_limited_recognition&curid=523670&diff=810694268&oldid=810640484 Legacypac ( talk) 02:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The Republic of West Papua, has resumed its defacto existence, as West Papuan separatists have seized control over several villages in the territory they claim. See [ [16]]. As such, i've added them to the list of rebel groups controlling territory. XavierGreen ( talk) 22:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Now that West Papuan separatists control land ( http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-10/papua-separatists-dispute-indonesia-claim-of-hostage-taking/9140340) should we include them, given that, from the Republic of West Papua article "The proposal is supported by Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands with the Parliament of Vanuatu passing the Wantok Blong Yumi Bill (Our Close Friends) in 2010 officially declaring that Vanuatu’s foreign policy is to support the achievement of the independence of West Papua.[1][2][3]"? Do the Vanuatuan and Solomon Islander acts constitute recognition? -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 05:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I am convinced with regards to West Papua. But also if "pursuant to the inclusion criteria, a de-facto state that has been recognized is added to the page under the constitutive theory, it need not even control territory" wouldn't we be compelled to add internationally recognized governments in exile which are outside of this list's scope? -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 07:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the following line be added to the excluded entities section:
* Regions and dependencies of sovereign states which have unilaterally declared independence but which lack the infrastructure of government and do not satisfy the declarative theory of statehood, such as the Catalan Republic. |
Should this new line be included in the article?
The benefits for adding the proposed line are that it will clearly establish that the current situation of the Catalan Republic will mean that it is excluded from this list without a doubt, as has been discussed previously (I emphasize the word current here as I am aware that the situation could change for Catalonia in the future, say after the election in December, it may need to be considered for inclusion on the list once again following a status change). Also, this will firmly establish how we are to handle a "Catalonia-type" situation were it to occur again in future. The disadvantages are that it adds complexity to the rules we use to include and exclude "states"/"entities" on the list, which may be more difficult for newer editors to adhere to, and that there is nothing in the declarative theory or the constitutive theory that mentions "infrastructure of government" in terms of defining "states". Feel free to propose modifications to the statement if needed. -
Wiz9999 (
talk)
15:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
* Proto-states which have unilaterally declared independence, but which lack the infrastructure of government, and do not satisfy the declarative theory of statehood, such as the Catalan Republic. |
--Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Just to tally up the stance of those that contributed to this discussion so far:
Those that are abstaining from taking a stance either way for the inclusion of this new exception:
Wiz9999,
HighFlyingFish
Those that agree with an inclusion:
--Jules
Those that disagree with the inclusion:
XavierGreen,
Ladril
From what I see, it does not look good for the proposed inclusion of this entry. Also, I have not been able to tell from
Legacypac's comments which way he/she stands on the issue. (Just to clarify, I make no claim to be the author of the statement proposed for inclusion, it was originally added to the article by the following user;
Smurrayinchester, in the following edit
[17]). -
Wiz9999 (
talk)
18:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of states with limited recognition. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of states with limited recognition. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Non-recognition of one state by other state, by default, means that this other state is not recognized by the first state as well. Thus, there is a sort of misrepresentation when you indicate, e.g., Armenia in the list as a non-recognized country (as it is not recognized by Pakistan) without indicating in the list that Pakistan is a non-recognized country as well (not recognized by Armenia). 212.34.225.50 ( talk) 12:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Does anybody have access to this paper? It seems to be very important to the article. -- Shmurak ( talk) 20:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of states with limited recognition has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is listed that PRChina is not recognised by "at least one UN member state" with that listen as being ROChina (Taiwan). The ROC is, however, not a UN member state, due to PRChina vetoing its recognition by the UN. This means that the labelling of PRChina's lack of recognition is incorrect and should, therefore, be either removed from the list or edited. Proof: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/taiwans-un-dilemma-to-be-or-not-to-be/ Efdu ( talk) 21:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Not done various UN countries recognize ROC not PRC
Legacypac (
talk)
21:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Wa State is an unrecognized country that seems to meet the declarative criteria. Should it be included in the list? From what I can tell, it belongs under the "States not recognised by any other state" section. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 14:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The question do we need to include in our list named "List of states with limited recognition" UN non-member state not recognised by any state (i. e. now it is only Somaliland). It seems to me that we need to demand from state be at least recognised by one UN non-member state in order to be included in the list. Bottomline: does the word limited in the title includes 0-recognition? (absence of recognition from any polity). Is "None" within the subset of "limited"? -- Shmurak ( talk) 16:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The criteria for inclusion means a polity must claim sovereignty, satisfy the declarative theory of statehood, lack recognition from at least one UN member state, and be recognised as a state by at least one state (UN member or not, but which also satisfy the declarative theory of statehood). -- Shmurak ( talk) 16:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Somaliland is a special case well supported by independent reliable sources. Is there some reason you are worried about this one inclusion? In all areas except being recognized by other countires they are as much or more a country than some UN members and semi recognized states like South Oddessa (Russia backed/controlled), Palistine (Israeli controlled), Northern Cyprus (only Turkey supoorts) etc. No other country controls Somaliland and the failed state of Somolia is in no position to press or enforce its claim. Legacypac ( talk) 16:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Renaming the list seems like a much cleaner, simpler solution. Perhaps "List of States Without Universal Recognition"? -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 18:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)-- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 18:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
No thanks. Somalialand is a state with limited recognition too. No nation state officially "recognizes" it for various reasons but many states accept it's travel documents and otherwise informally recognize it. The title is just fine. Legacypac ( talk) 21:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
To answer the original question, yes limited includes unrecognized states. The list's limit is universal recognition. Any states with less recognition than that are listed, which includes no recognition at all. The key point is that they must be verifiably sovereign states that are unrecognized. TDL ( talk) 13:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Personally I see no special reason to rename the list. To my mind, "limited recognition" does include no recognition. Kahastok talk 14:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I have always taken the term "limited", as it is used in this list, to mean "some or none" with regards to recognition. Yes, I do know that in English lexicon "limited" can sometimes mean just "some" and NOT "none", especially when talking with respect to say ... mathematics or something. For example, it is easy to imagine a series of numbers being either "unlimited", "limited", or "absent". This I believe is the sort thinking and logic that the proposer
Shmurak is using when he proposed his change/revision. However, English is (as always) a tricky and fluid beast of a language and I do not think that I am not incorrect in saying that "limited" can also mean "absent" or "none" in certain situations, in addition to "some" (or alternatively also "many"). I do believe that with regards to this article we do have such a situation, and the word "limited" is being used appropriately here. Therefore I am in favor of not changing it, but I can understand why some people would want this list to subsequently not include "absent" recognition states. However, if a suitable alternative name that is widely accepted by other contributors is found, I would not be opposed to it either (I did briefly talk about all this a few months ago, in a now archived discussion).
Regardless of the title, the acceptance criteria is really what is the most important aspect about how this article functions, and less so its title (redirects do exist for a reason). For the same reasons as
Kahastok has mentioned above I do not think we should change the acceptance criteria to have a recognition AND declarative theory type statement. That would indeed get us into some very muddy waters. I am happy with the current way of having the inclusion criteria have a recognition OR declarative theory type of statement. Yes, it makes life a little difficult for us editors to source statements when a state does unilaterally declare independence, but it also avoids some other bizarre side effects. I am 'content' with the current inclusion criteria as they are, but I am also willing to admit that they are not perfect but are simply 'good enough' for the purposes of this article as it currently stands. This is, of course, unless someone raises a very credible point that would require adjusting them... -
Wiz9999 (
talk)
13:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Just for your information: I have just asked James Ker-Lindsay privately which items should we include in the list of states with limited recognition. And got the following answer: "If it is a list of states with limited recognition, then any territory that has not been recognised by any UN member should by definition not be included. However, I can see the argument for having bilateral recognition from non-UN members, under certain circumstances." -- 145.108.173.220 ( talk) 13:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I oppose the proposal to increase the threshold of inclusion. None is within "limited" in this context for the following reasons: This article is for de facto and unrecognized states that either have partial recognition or satisfy the criteria of the declarative theory. Neither "Unrecognized states" nor "Partially recognized states" is an inclusive and accurate description for groupings of states such as Abkhazia, Transnistria, Somaliland, Artsakh, Palestine, Taiwan, Western Sahara, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, and Kosovo because despite being in a similar situation (lack of full membership in the international community) they have varying degrees of recognition ranging from very little to very many countries recognizing them. "States with limited recognition" is a neutral and inclusive title here, and it would not be beneficial to exclude Somaliland due to a lack of any recognition, or to discuss whether or not Artsakh having recognition from many US States but not the US as a whole counts, or whether or not Transnistria having recognition from other states with limited recognition should truly constitute limited recognition. These states exist on a spectrum, but what they have in common is a limited amount of international recognition. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
They are recognised by 2 UN members; Vanuatu, and The Solomon Islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.115.232 ( talk) 12:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
My understanding is that the criteria of this list would allow an unrecognized state to be included if it is recognized by UN members, regardless of whether it currnetly has self-rule. This is consistent with the constitutive theory. However, support is distinct from recognition. Do any of these sources say Vanuatu recognizes West Papua as a soverign state? If so, then we should add it. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 19:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Follow-up comment: I've checked the sources on the foreign relations section and I've confirmed that Vanuatu recognizes West Papua as a currently sovereign nation-state and has requested of the UN Security Council that West Papua gains UN observer status. Foreign_relations_of_Vanuatu#Wantok_Blong_Yumi_Bill:_recognition_of_West_Papua news source news source 2 US library of congress source citing additional sources I say we add West Papua per the April discussion on inclusion: I am happy with the current way of having the inclusion criteria have a recognition OR declarative theory type of statement. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I fail to see why these entities do not belong on this list.
AusLondonder ( talk) 02:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with AusLondonder. A lot of previous discussion was at a time where these entities were much less established, and when far fewer independent sources confirmed their status. Now, there are
Wikipedia:Rs confirming that these entities are unrecognized countries (for example, the three sources cited on this page
/info/en/?search=Donetsk_People%27s_Republic.
Wikipedia:Consensus elsewhere, especially on their own pages (see also here
/info/en/?search=Luhansk_People%27s_Republic) treats them as "unrecognized state"s. As for this page
Wikipedia:Consensus can change and most recent discussion on the topic just points to old discussion/consensus, which, as I have said, is outdated. --
HighFlyingFish (
talk)
20:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Simply saying that it is a state is insufficient. We need to be able to demonstrate that they are often considered to meet the declarative theory of statehood. Please cite where relevant sources explicitly state that the two entities pass the test of the declarative theory of statehood. Kahastok talk 22:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to read through the latest sources yet, so I have not yet formed an opinion on whether they should be added or not, but one difficulty is that it's not even clear what should be added: Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic or Novorossiya_(confederation). The former made a "Declaration of State Sovereignty of New Russia" last December [3] so the People's Republic don't appear to consider themselves to be sovereign any longer. TDL ( talk) 00:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
If we aren't going to put Donetsk and Luhansk in, then we at least need to have them in the Excluded Entities section, and clearly explain what conditions they'd need to meet to be included, and currently don't meet. Otherwise, we'll keep having this discussion. --
HighFlyingFish (
talk)
20:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
...this edit comment. The long descriptions in the tables are hard to read - all this is doing is pulling out the ONLY comparable data-point to make it easier for readers. Why make readers wade through all those walls of text, when you can add a small column. Oncenawhile ( talk) 21:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I recall we had a large discussion a while a go about whether states like Montenegro which are very new UN members with whome not everyone has yet established diplomatic ties count as unrecognized. I don't think having a "UN recognition" column is a good idea because I'm concerned that we may reopen that can of worms in doing so. The exact question was along the lines of: If two states are both UN members and have never had any diplomatic relations of any sort, do they recognize each other? I think in the end Consensus was that it doesn't matter, because no relations means no source saying that they DON'T recognize each other, but if we make statements as to number recognizing, then we have to sort that out again. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 01:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Please note that I have protected this file, used in the lead of this article, on Commons. The protected version matches the current version of the article (as of 08:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)). If substantive changes are wanted to the file, I will expect to see a consensus for that change to be established at this page or the file's talk page.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 08:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Should we add the unrecognized Principality of Sealand or is that to frivolous a situation to list with these ones? Arnoutf ( talk) 18:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Could someone, please, explain exactly why Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh and Somaliland are considered as states with limited recognition, while the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics are not? Donetsk and Lugansk P.R. have engaged in international relations (even if it's only with South Ossetia, but Somaliland not even that), since February 2015 they've had stable borders, populations and governments. Like it or not, but that's the reality. I May not particularly like the existence of Northern Cyprus or Transnistria but they exist. Now, given the circumstances and if no further and reasonable explanation is given, I'll take the initiative to remove Somaliland since it has less statehood conditions than the 2 other ones I mentioned. It's a matter of being coherent. Greetings! Viet-hoian1 ( talk) 22:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
...there are three other territories that have unilaterally declared independence and are generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria for statehood but have not been recognized by any states: Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland.)
A quick search reveals this
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=20718322&AN=108554586&h=2yLluQ9USyL%2bqrCi5QJVc4nyzOcvVycbWvgJRA7DR%2bRtRbulSfYzP%2byYExydgXcINKPIW1ATxkv6Vyaf1NMwZw%3d%3d&crl=c&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d20718322%26AN%3d108554586 ("in the context of Russia's political, military, and financial support for self-declared "people's republics" in Donetsk and Luhansk"). And this
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/doi/10.1111/1467-8322.12108/epdf "What remains of primary importance in de facto states is the performative nature of the state and the degree of cohesion it creates by changing the facts on the ground. The Donetsk People’s Republic declared its inde-pendence on 7 April 2014 and held a referendum scarcely a month later on 11 May 2014. Though the results of this ref-erendum were predictably in favour of independence from Ukraine, the fact that it occurred is what matters. After the referendum, the basic conditions of statehood can be fulfilled." and further "Post-referendum, the conflict is no longer between Ukraine and individuals or groups challenging its authority, but between two polities, one rec-ognized, the other not. Both see themselves as sovereign. According to international law, both are sovereign if they can successfully exercise authority in the contested territo-ries – this is what is now being tested. A few flags, occu-pied buildings, and a made-to-order referendum do much to legitimize an otherwise tenuous claim to statehood." I'll need more time to read through these and be sure that I understand their full argument (the articles are Ukraine, International Law, and the Political Economy of Self- Determination. and Separatism redux: Crimea, Transnistria, and Eurasia's de facto states respectively), but it certainly indicates scholarly coverage. --
HighFlyingFish (
talk)
18:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Another thing: We have WP:RS showing that South Ossetia has recognized both the LPR and the DPR. Isn't that, by itself sufficient for inclusion, since that means they are already partially recognized? -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 21:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I have just finished catching up on the discussions previously held on this issue. So clearly the jury is still out weather or not the two states have met the declarative theory or not. Weather a formal "declaration" has happened or not seems to be the sticking point, and the editing community at large has not reached a consensus on this matter. Fair enough.
Can we all at least agree that the proposed "states" have now obtained a fixed border at the ceasefire line that essentially has remained unchanged for months now? As far as I can see they now satisfy the criteria for the four following points: A defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states. Due to their aforementioned fixed borders with a population that is resident in their cities (and relations they now have with South Ossetia, as was mentioned in previous discussions), despite the two "states" possibly not having actually declared such independence. In theory that would mean if such a elusive source were found then they could be added to the list, or if they happen to declare independence at some future point then they could correspondingly be added to this list. Is this something that the majority can agree on? That after all of this passage of time they would now fulfill the four criteria points, if relevant sources are obtained that is? Please bear in mind I am not asking for these "states" to be included now, just asking if now they 'could' be included. Thoughts? Wiz9999 ( talk) 00:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Somaliland gained a full sovereignty there fore why international community has not recognized yet? Shakir-essa ( talk) 23:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be abused as a political tool, but to reflect reality. The reality is that Kiev has no control of these regions, but they're also doesn't seem to a category where they might fit in at the moment.
To avoid Wikipedia being used for political reasons (as is now the case by ignoring these states. Both are recognized by at least one other non-UN member anyway)
They should be mentioned, lest Wikipedia loses touch with reality. An Encycplodia should tell it like it is. Not like a certain WANTS it to be.
Its articles should also describe in an objective manner the situation in both of these new-born "republics"; Because with Russian backing, Ukraine is as likely to regain those territories as France does Algeria or Belgium does Congo.
TL:DR Wikipedia should reflect reality as it is, not as certain political organisation wish it was. Othewise it loses credibility hard
78.23.197.184 ( talk) 13:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree it would be useful to have a section about areas that claim to be states and control territory, but aren't cited as sovereign in academic sources. It would be a good compromise in the debate that comes up again every month on here, and would reduce confusion among readers by addressing these high profile cases. GeoEvan ( talk) 01:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments? TDL ( talk) 23:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I like it and have incorporated a version of it into the article. Let's see what others say. We spell out ISIL though, not Islamic State which suggests they are a global state. Legacypac ( talk) 05:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
A large number of Sunni Arab states broke their diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, in some cases completely breaking also commercial ties and de-facto making Iran persona non-grata in the eyes of Sunni Arab states (as well as Djibouti). Some see this as synonimous with the declaration of war, while others consider this removing Sunni Arab recognition of Islamic Republic's legitimacy. A similar thing happened in Iran, whose government hasn't begun the diplomatic rift, but hinted that the Saudi regime is not legitimate in their eyes [5], following the radical discourse of the Saudis. We should therefore consider putting Iran and Saudi Arabia here in light of this fresh radical development as they factually seized mutual recognition. Opinions? GreyShark ( dibra) 09:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The Canadian govt withdrew diplomatic relations with Iran a few years ago, but everyone still agrees Iran is a country, just object to its present rulers. No changes required. Legacypac ( talk) 22:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks
Spirit Ethanol (
talk)
21:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
An edit war over which infobox to use on the DPR and LPR pages has been ongoing for several months now. In an attempt to remedy the situation i have opened up a discussion and request for comment here Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic#Infobox, your opinions and comments on the issue would be much appreciated. XavierGreen ( talk) 06:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of states with limited recognition. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Should the Donetsk and Luhansk republics be added to this? I think one has zero recognition, and the other has recognition but a non-UN member.--BLACK FUTURE ( tlk2meh) 23:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh okay cool, just curious is all (haven't touched the article, not pushing or anything). the theory states it had to have a defined territory (they don't they claim the entire oblasts but only control within the fluctuating frontlines); permanent population (many are IDPs, citizenship and passports arent universal, all are still citizens of Ukraine); a government (I think the DNR would qualify for this); international relations (DNR does qualify for this if you count South Ossetia).
So that being said, if DNR citizenship continued to extend, and its borders were defined by Minsk II(I) / a future Ukrainian constitutional amendment, it would qualify for the article?--BLACK FUTURE ( tlk2meh) 18:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Separate question, but since South Ossetia's borders continue to change (in what is being described as a 'creeping annexation') would it no longer qualify for the declarative model? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Future ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#RFC:_Lists_of_countries_and_territories.2C_List_of_sovereign_states.2C_List_of_active_rebel_groups_and_ISIL has an RFC potentially affecting this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac ( talk • contribs) 21:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Due to a similarity in topics, editors here are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox.
CMD (
talk)
13:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This section has multiple issues I would like to discuss. A part of this section claims that entities like the Donetsk People's Republic are simply rebel groups that control territory and declare independence,however there are no sources for this claim next to this piece or anywhere at all.Could anyone please find a source for this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.142.1 ( talk) 12:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
My assertion here is that we should drop the requirement for sources to say that an entity meets "the declarative theory" of sovereignty, and simply require that reliable sources say that an entity is "sovereign". There is no good reason to privilege a particular description/understanding of sovereignty, when the concept itself challenged and complex. This is not to reject the idea that entities require multiple, verifiable, independent sources. -- Super Nintendo Chalmers ( talk) 21:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
No-one of the links provided prove that there are UN members not recognizing the People's Republic of China. The links only prove that the PRC does not want diplomatic relations with those who recognize the ROC. The PRC should be deleted of the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.111.252 ( talk) 11:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of states with limited recognition. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy I did not add original research, would the edit work better if I add sources such as this? Many thanks Kzl55 ( talk) 22:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: I was able to access the URL that the IP added (here http://www.ncnk.org/resources/briefing-papers/all-briefing-papers/dprk-diplomatic-relations). If you want I can post a screenshot of what's on there. Basically its a map of countries "with which the DPRK has diplomatic relations". "countries that have formally broken their relations with North Korea remain blank". Recognition is not explicitly mentioned as far as I can see (@2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:c021:ec7d:fbd6:3ac6 could you quote the part of the reference that talks about lack of recognition, as opposed to lack of bilateral relations?). The list of countries that don't have bilateral relations with the DPRK from that map is rather broad, including, in addition to the usual suspects, countries like Ecuador and Lesotho. If consensus is that lack of bilateral relations is the same as non-recognition, then I can list them all out for the benefit of people for whom the URL doesn't work, and add them to the list, but I think consensus is that lacking bilateral relations is different from non-recognition so this source isn't really relevant to this page. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 03:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC) @ Iryna Harpy: and @ 2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:c021:ec7d:fbd6:3ac6:. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 03:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Usually grouped with micronations, and legally questionable since its territory is man-made, but doesn't the Principality of Sealand meet the declarative criteria? It controls territory, de facto tolerated by neighbouring states for about 50 years now, people do live there, it has a government (although the Prince doesn't live there himself), and it has had relations with other states in the past (connected to the 1978 hostage crisis). The difference between Sealand and other micronations based on a claim of secession is that Sealand's territory was abandoned in international waters at the time it was set up. If it isn't properly terra nullius, that is only because it is a man-made structure. I think that's enough to put it in the same category as Somaliland. -- 79.22.131.211 ( talk) 23:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I mean by definition the statehood of every state on this list is disputed. We've discussed Sealand and other edge cases like the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics a lot on the talk pages, and what the current consensus has come to is basically that at least some academic sources (peer reviewed journals, etc.) need to refer to it as a state OR another UN member must recognize it. Recognition by non-UN members, or references in more casual sources have been rejected (e.g. a lot of journalists call ISIL a state, but ISIL is not included on this list). Personally I think the bar is unnecessarily high, but that is what discussion has yielded. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 02:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Because of the South Ossetian name change referendum, 2017 should we change South Ossetia's entry to Republic of South Ossetia–the State of Alania? -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 00:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Google translate says ""1. The Republic of South Ossetia - Alania State - a sovereign democratic legal state created as a result of self-determination of the people of South Ossetia.
The names of the Republic of South Ossetia, and the State of Alania are equal. " I'm not able to think of another country that has two equal names, but even the referendum seems to give State of Alania as either an alternative name or a hyphenated name. [1] along the lines of Russian Republic of North Ossetia–Alania Legacypac ( talk) 07:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Should we be using the WP:COMMONNAME or the official names of these entities? The version proposed by @Beshogur (and frankly the current version also) is currently inconsistent on this, both within entries (Republic of Artsakh vs. Karabakh) and between entries (Karabakh vs. Republic of China vs. Republic of South Ossetia (that recently voted to change its name to Republic of South Ossetia–the State of Alania, see 2017 in South Ossetia). I think we should use the official names in all cases, as those are the ones used by the entities themselves, and those are unambiguous and consistent (whereas unofficial names can often refer to geographic regions and outright mislead, for example Taiwan claims territory outside of Taiwan). We could also follow the List of sovereign states and provide both names (e.g. Nagorno-Karabakh – Republic of Artsakh[Note 25]). Also please see the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Discuss controversial edits and establish consensus before reinstating them. Thank you! -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 16:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm increasingly warming to the convention in List of sovereign states where both are given, as that would give our readers the most information in the most compact manner. If we don't do that, I think the neutral and unambiguous thing to do is to use the entity's own official name(s) for themselves. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 18:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Nine Arab countries, namely Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, the Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen, have all cut their diplomatic ties with Qatar recently. Should we now include Qatar in the list of UN member states not recognised by at least one UN member state? Bobbie73 ( talk) 06:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
New countries are rarely formed so it's not a big issue. Answer is... it depends. [1] and Diplomatic recognition Legacypac ( talk) 09:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Should we include Wa State in the list? I reckon they are very similar to Somaliland. 2001:8003:8600:EF00:88D5:9EC7:ADC9:5D15 ( talk) 13:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
About recognition of a state [6], Recognition of States in International Law and Recognition of states and governments in international law. Reading for someone.-- Yopie ( talk) 23:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm currently reading the "De facto statehood in Eurasia: a political and security phenomenon" article discussed above and it offhandedly mentions the following: "The number of recognitions itself can vary from dozens (e.g. the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Kosovo or Taiwan) to several (e.g. Abkhazia, South Ossetia) to one (e.g. the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is recognized only by Turkey, and Free Kashmir, which is recognized only by Pakistan)." If Pakistan recognizes Free Kashmir then it is, by definition, a state with limited recognition and ought to be included. The quote above is the article's only mention of Free Kashmir and the author doesn't elaborate upon his claim. Is it accurate? Should we include Free Kashmir recognized by Pakistan? -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 09:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of states with limited recognition. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Please note that there is an RFC at WikiProject Countries that editors of this article may be interested in. Kahastok talk 19:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Elsewhere on Wikipedia (including in the North Korea article itself and the Foreign Relations of North Korea), eight UN members are cited as not recognizing North Korea as a state: Argentina, Botswana, Estonia, France, Iraq, Israel, Japan, and the United States. Recommend editing the North Korea section to reflect those eight countries do not recognize North Korea.
We must add these areas. Beshogur ( talk) 11:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Got the article but haven't had a chance to read it yet. That said [7] it looks like there's a new development on the ground that may render this article moot. We may potentially have to add Malorossiya but this seems like it supersedes the two people's republics, assuming this report is accurate. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 20:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I have to admit, based on the article's text I'm not sure it in itself is cause to add them. Some pertinent quotes: "But if the de-escalation process, launched in Minsk, is implemented, even though with difficulty, the Donetsk and Lugansk republics will have a real chance to build statehood of their own within their present boundaries. There are no guarantees that this process will be successful." and "The Donbass breakaway territories are now often compared to Transnistria. But even compared with Crimea, where the movement for joining Russia was headed by leaders who had made successful political or business careers after Ukraine had gained independence (Sergei Aksyonov,Alexei Chaly and Vladimir Konstantinov), Donbass lacks experienced politicians. Thus currently different options, ranging from Chechnya and Serbian Krajina to the Transnistrian experience, may be possible.". Like the article I found a while back, Donbass statehood is described as a thing being built/tested not a thing unrecognized but already in existence. Based on these quotes the author wants to draw a clear distinction between the Donbass PRs and the other entities he analyzes. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 10:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Caspersen, Nina (2016).
"Making Peace with De Facto States". The Annual of Language and Language of Politics and Identity. 10: 7–18.
ISSN
1805-3769. Archived from
the original (PDF) on 2017-09-01. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help) — «Moreover, new contested territories that could be described as de facto states have emerged, most notably the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republics in Ukraine. These two newest additions to the universe of de facto states have started to create some of the trappings of statehood, although the extent of „indigenous roots‟ is still debatable" --
Yelysavet (
talk)
03:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
It is fine to say in the Donestk page they declared independance, but no one has ever recognized or agreed to that. I'd want to see a few good reliable sources - more than say they cail the criteria. Legacypac ( talk) 22:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
I'm confused as to why Armenia is included on this list. Supposedly Pakistan does not recognise Armenia as a country, but this seems to be more in the category of symbolic gestures or "not having diplomatic relations" (e.g. US-North Korea, etc.), rather than analogous to (e.g.) Nagorno-Karabakh or Somaliland. In fact every other country on this list involves a territorial dispute. Additionally, the sources are pretty poor quality and both appear to be translations. Ivar the Boneful ( talk) 10:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Why is the Republic of Logone not included in this page? I understand that as it's situation as part of a warzone, much like Donetsk and Luhansk, could exclude it from the main list, but surely it should at least be given mention in the "excluded entities" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Firstly, @ Yelysavet:, this is a breach of an active arbitration remedy described at the top of this page. You should self-revert before you are reported and blocked. Note that per the arbitration remedy, no warning is required before you are blocked for breaking the arbitration remedy.
No, it has nothing to do with the Israel-Palestine issues that the arbitration remedy is aimed at. Yes, it's a completely crazy situation. I objected to these rules at the time, but we are subject to them.
Now, what's the objection?
I find this new section as a whole is discussing South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, Transnistria or Artsakh. But this list includes South Korea, China, Cyprus and Armenia as well. In the context of this list, the new section is inaccurate and fails to make any useful point. It should not be included in this article. Kahastok talk 18:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Catalonia is preparing to declare independence on monday [11], if that happens will Catalonia be added to this list? or will it be treated the same as Donetsk and Luhansk? 70.56.180.215 ( talk) 00:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Dutch TV claims he called for a dialogue with Spanish government as Catalonia now has the right to independence - but not actually declared it. So we need mainstream agreement that what he said was indeed declaration of independence and not a "tactical withdrawal" (BTW quote of BBC: "seeks independence talks" CNN: "delays split to pursue talks" so not really declaration of independence on either source) Arnoutf ( talk) 17:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The Catalonian parliament has voted for independence: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/europe/catalonia-independence-spain/index.html Ladril ( talk) 13:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Put the Catalan Republic in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.153.169.187 ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
why Rojava, Catalan, Luhansk and Donetsk not in any list? E.F Edits ( talk) 16:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of states with limited recognition has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To whom it may concern: Greetings, editors, I would like to add the Catalan Republic to the 'Non-UN member state not recognised by any state' section, as it had declared independence on 27 Oct, 2017. 221.126.246.2 ( talk) 23:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of states with limited recognition has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Catalonia needs to be on it. I'm just saying, and I'm not Catalonian, but I'm just saying. Minecraftfan04 ( talk) 21:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
No it fails both the theories of what makes a sovereign state Legacypac ( talk) 21:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Its notable enough that there should be an explanation of why it is *not* on the page, even if it won't be on the list.
Those are puppet states created by Russia in order to prevent development of Moldova and Ukraine. Thus Russia does not recognise their independence, it wants to influence Moldova and Ukraine, but does not want really see these three countries independent. Why we are writing only about Transnistria and not about two other puppet states? Mechanism is the same. Abhazia and Osetia is a little bit different story, there Russian really wants to pull apart those lands from Georgia. -- 217.105.24.253 ( talk) 20:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
They have declared a Catalan Republic, I would personally advocating waiting for at least 24 hours to see if there will be a practical implementation as this article only includes administrations that have physical territory etc. PompeyTheGreat ( talk) 13:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Has now got an article at Catalan Republic (2017). Probably best to hold off at this stage, but its statehood is being discussed by politicians around the globe. At the moment is mainly notable for being not being recognized by various entities, which perversely does give some credence to legitimacy. The main reason for not including is that the "republic" is likely to pretty short lived, although somewhat longer than the Catalan State (1934). --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Granted that no other country has recognised it yet (and it may well stay that way) but we do have a section specifically for countries that are not recognised by any UN member state. I am unsure why it does not merit inclusion in that. I apologise if this is covered above and I have missed it. What is/are the criteria that are required for inclusion which Somaliland meets but Catalonia lacks? Surely that is a reasonably low bar? Arnoutf has suggested 4 criteria but it seems that three of those are met (although maybe not for long) and the final one is arguable. Are those the correct criteria? Please can somebody summarise as I don't seem to be the only person who is confused by this? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure. What makes a sovereign state is not clear cut, but our page lays it out pretty well. Scholars nearly all agree Somalialand is the classic case of a dejure State that simply lacks any official international recognition but in every other way exercises sovereignty as a state. It has a defined territory, government, and population. For many years it has exercised exclusive police/military control (a monopoly on violence) over it’s territory completely independent from Mogadishu based players. It even operates international trade offices and representations that are embassies in all but name (Taiwan does similar). It has managed to attain all the trappings of statehood because Somalia is a failed state and Somalialand is the best politically organized, least poor, safest part of Somalia. Somalialand lacks international recognition from other states because there is no real benefits (military, economic, political etc) to any other state in recognizing them. There are simply downsides - like emboldening amd setting precedent for separatists in other countries and or their neighbors and friends. Major powers and adjoining states prefer the status quo of a peaceful stable Somolialand over the alternative of recognized independance that starts open war there. For example the US would not want to recognize Somalialand which might embolden Scottish or Quebec or Puerto Rico independence, which would weaken the US and it’s friends. The other two “comtries” listed are long standing frozen conflicts where no recognized State has recognized them but the states exist on the ground. None of these three line up with the facts in Catalon - its not a stable lomg term sitaution at all. Spain clearly has significant military control. Spain may control the government by disbanding the regional govt. Spains allies and neighbors will not be supporting an independant state either. Legacypac ( talk) 22:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Impru20: have you got an opinion ? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 15:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
References
This was a good solution to the question why not listed. It was reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_states_with_limited_recognition&curid=523670&diff=810694268&oldid=810640484 Legacypac ( talk) 02:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The Republic of West Papua, has resumed its defacto existence, as West Papuan separatists have seized control over several villages in the territory they claim. See [ [16]]. As such, i've added them to the list of rebel groups controlling territory. XavierGreen ( talk) 22:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Now that West Papuan separatists control land ( http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-10/papua-separatists-dispute-indonesia-claim-of-hostage-taking/9140340) should we include them, given that, from the Republic of West Papua article "The proposal is supported by Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands with the Parliament of Vanuatu passing the Wantok Blong Yumi Bill (Our Close Friends) in 2010 officially declaring that Vanuatu’s foreign policy is to support the achievement of the independence of West Papua.[1][2][3]"? Do the Vanuatuan and Solomon Islander acts constitute recognition? -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 05:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I am convinced with regards to West Papua. But also if "pursuant to the inclusion criteria, a de-facto state that has been recognized is added to the page under the constitutive theory, it need not even control territory" wouldn't we be compelled to add internationally recognized governments in exile which are outside of this list's scope? -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 07:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the following line be added to the excluded entities section:
* Regions and dependencies of sovereign states which have unilaterally declared independence but which lack the infrastructure of government and do not satisfy the declarative theory of statehood, such as the Catalan Republic. |
Should this new line be included in the article?
The benefits for adding the proposed line are that it will clearly establish that the current situation of the Catalan Republic will mean that it is excluded from this list without a doubt, as has been discussed previously (I emphasize the word current here as I am aware that the situation could change for Catalonia in the future, say after the election in December, it may need to be considered for inclusion on the list once again following a status change). Also, this will firmly establish how we are to handle a "Catalonia-type" situation were it to occur again in future. The disadvantages are that it adds complexity to the rules we use to include and exclude "states"/"entities" on the list, which may be more difficult for newer editors to adhere to, and that there is nothing in the declarative theory or the constitutive theory that mentions "infrastructure of government" in terms of defining "states". Feel free to propose modifications to the statement if needed. -
Wiz9999 (
talk)
15:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
* Proto-states which have unilaterally declared independence, but which lack the infrastructure of government, and do not satisfy the declarative theory of statehood, such as the Catalan Republic. |
--Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Just to tally up the stance of those that contributed to this discussion so far:
Those that are abstaining from taking a stance either way for the inclusion of this new exception:
Wiz9999,
HighFlyingFish
Those that agree with an inclusion:
--Jules
Those that disagree with the inclusion:
XavierGreen,
Ladril
From what I see, it does not look good for the proposed inclusion of this entry. Also, I have not been able to tell from
Legacypac's comments which way he/she stands on the issue. (Just to clarify, I make no claim to be the author of the statement proposed for inclusion, it was originally added to the article by the following user;
Smurrayinchester, in the following edit
[17]). -
Wiz9999 (
talk)
18:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of states with limited recognition. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of states with limited recognition. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Non-recognition of one state by other state, by default, means that this other state is not recognized by the first state as well. Thus, there is a sort of misrepresentation when you indicate, e.g., Armenia in the list as a non-recognized country (as it is not recognized by Pakistan) without indicating in the list that Pakistan is a non-recognized country as well (not recognized by Armenia). 212.34.225.50 ( talk) 12:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Does anybody have access to this paper? It seems to be very important to the article. -- Shmurak ( talk) 20:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of states with limited recognition has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is listed that PRChina is not recognised by "at least one UN member state" with that listen as being ROChina (Taiwan). The ROC is, however, not a UN member state, due to PRChina vetoing its recognition by the UN. This means that the labelling of PRChina's lack of recognition is incorrect and should, therefore, be either removed from the list or edited. Proof: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/taiwans-un-dilemma-to-be-or-not-to-be/ Efdu ( talk) 21:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Not done various UN countries recognize ROC not PRC
Legacypac (
talk)
21:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Wa State is an unrecognized country that seems to meet the declarative criteria. Should it be included in the list? From what I can tell, it belongs under the "States not recognised by any other state" section. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 14:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The question do we need to include in our list named "List of states with limited recognition" UN non-member state not recognised by any state (i. e. now it is only Somaliland). It seems to me that we need to demand from state be at least recognised by one UN non-member state in order to be included in the list. Bottomline: does the word limited in the title includes 0-recognition? (absence of recognition from any polity). Is "None" within the subset of "limited"? -- Shmurak ( talk) 16:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The criteria for inclusion means a polity must claim sovereignty, satisfy the declarative theory of statehood, lack recognition from at least one UN member state, and be recognised as a state by at least one state (UN member or not, but which also satisfy the declarative theory of statehood). -- Shmurak ( talk) 16:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Somaliland is a special case well supported by independent reliable sources. Is there some reason you are worried about this one inclusion? In all areas except being recognized by other countires they are as much or more a country than some UN members and semi recognized states like South Oddessa (Russia backed/controlled), Palistine (Israeli controlled), Northern Cyprus (only Turkey supoorts) etc. No other country controls Somaliland and the failed state of Somolia is in no position to press or enforce its claim. Legacypac ( talk) 16:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Renaming the list seems like a much cleaner, simpler solution. Perhaps "List of States Without Universal Recognition"? -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 18:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)-- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 18:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
No thanks. Somalialand is a state with limited recognition too. No nation state officially "recognizes" it for various reasons but many states accept it's travel documents and otherwise informally recognize it. The title is just fine. Legacypac ( talk) 21:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
To answer the original question, yes limited includes unrecognized states. The list's limit is universal recognition. Any states with less recognition than that are listed, which includes no recognition at all. The key point is that they must be verifiably sovereign states that are unrecognized. TDL ( talk) 13:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Personally I see no special reason to rename the list. To my mind, "limited recognition" does include no recognition. Kahastok talk 14:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I have always taken the term "limited", as it is used in this list, to mean "some or none" with regards to recognition. Yes, I do know that in English lexicon "limited" can sometimes mean just "some" and NOT "none", especially when talking with respect to say ... mathematics or something. For example, it is easy to imagine a series of numbers being either "unlimited", "limited", or "absent". This I believe is the sort thinking and logic that the proposer
Shmurak is using when he proposed his change/revision. However, English is (as always) a tricky and fluid beast of a language and I do not think that I am not incorrect in saying that "limited" can also mean "absent" or "none" in certain situations, in addition to "some" (or alternatively also "many"). I do believe that with regards to this article we do have such a situation, and the word "limited" is being used appropriately here. Therefore I am in favor of not changing it, but I can understand why some people would want this list to subsequently not include "absent" recognition states. However, if a suitable alternative name that is widely accepted by other contributors is found, I would not be opposed to it either (I did briefly talk about all this a few months ago, in a now archived discussion).
Regardless of the title, the acceptance criteria is really what is the most important aspect about how this article functions, and less so its title (redirects do exist for a reason). For the same reasons as
Kahastok has mentioned above I do not think we should change the acceptance criteria to have a recognition AND declarative theory type statement. That would indeed get us into some very muddy waters. I am happy with the current way of having the inclusion criteria have a recognition OR declarative theory type of statement. Yes, it makes life a little difficult for us editors to source statements when a state does unilaterally declare independence, but it also avoids some other bizarre side effects. I am 'content' with the current inclusion criteria as they are, but I am also willing to admit that they are not perfect but are simply 'good enough' for the purposes of this article as it currently stands. This is, of course, unless someone raises a very credible point that would require adjusting them... -
Wiz9999 (
talk)
13:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Just for your information: I have just asked James Ker-Lindsay privately which items should we include in the list of states with limited recognition. And got the following answer: "If it is a list of states with limited recognition, then any territory that has not been recognised by any UN member should by definition not be included. However, I can see the argument for having bilateral recognition from non-UN members, under certain circumstances." -- 145.108.173.220 ( talk) 13:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I oppose the proposal to increase the threshold of inclusion. None is within "limited" in this context for the following reasons: This article is for de facto and unrecognized states that either have partial recognition or satisfy the criteria of the declarative theory. Neither "Unrecognized states" nor "Partially recognized states" is an inclusive and accurate description for groupings of states such as Abkhazia, Transnistria, Somaliland, Artsakh, Palestine, Taiwan, Western Sahara, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, and Kosovo because despite being in a similar situation (lack of full membership in the international community) they have varying degrees of recognition ranging from very little to very many countries recognizing them. "States with limited recognition" is a neutral and inclusive title here, and it would not be beneficial to exclude Somaliland due to a lack of any recognition, or to discuss whether or not Artsakh having recognition from many US States but not the US as a whole counts, or whether or not Transnistria having recognition from other states with limited recognition should truly constitute limited recognition. These states exist on a spectrum, but what they have in common is a limited amount of international recognition. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
They are recognised by 2 UN members; Vanuatu, and The Solomon Islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.115.232 ( talk) 12:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
My understanding is that the criteria of this list would allow an unrecognized state to be included if it is recognized by UN members, regardless of whether it currnetly has self-rule. This is consistent with the constitutive theory. However, support is distinct from recognition. Do any of these sources say Vanuatu recognizes West Papua as a soverign state? If so, then we should add it. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 19:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Follow-up comment: I've checked the sources on the foreign relations section and I've confirmed that Vanuatu recognizes West Papua as a currently sovereign nation-state and has requested of the UN Security Council that West Papua gains UN observer status. Foreign_relations_of_Vanuatu#Wantok_Blong_Yumi_Bill:_recognition_of_West_Papua news source news source 2 US library of congress source citing additional sources I say we add West Papua per the April discussion on inclusion: I am happy with the current way of having the inclusion criteria have a recognition OR declarative theory type of statement. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)