This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of protoestado from es.wikipedia. |
I'd question the decision to replace the constituent and secessionist tables with lists of current and former proto-states. This is redundant information, as it is clearly listed in both existing tables whether the proto-state in question still exists.
On an unrelated note, altering or removing sourced information from these tables and adding unsourced information in flagrant violation of the editing notice is generally frowned upon. -- Katangais (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The Islamic State today is referred to as a former proto-state and now operates primarily as a terrorist organization rather than an emerging unrecognized state. I'd recommend no longer using its height as the primary image / thumbnail of this article. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The column contents of “Achieved Statehood: No, De Facto, De Jure, Yes” are vague, its terms undefined, open to all kinds of interpretations, potentially misleading, and seems unsupportable as original research. We should ditch this in favour of indicating some kind of supportable facts, like international recognition, UN membership, etcetera. — Michael Z. 2020-04-03 16:46 z
Why states of the USA are not included? Like Georgia, Alabama, Florida etc. They are states, they have their own constitutions. Alexxzz123 ( talk) 09:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The United States (1776-1783) is listed under former proto-states. One might elucidate that as the “Thirteen Colonies” or list them individually, but let’s not overcomplicate this list. I think we can safely argue that since the US Constitution has no provision for secession, and since the fifty modern states currently have no intention to secede, then whatever you call them, they are integral parts of a state and not proto-states.
I am surprised the Confederate States of America hasn’t been added. — Michael Z. 17:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
Proto-state be
renamed and moved to
Quasi-state.
result: Links:
current log •
target log
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
References
A term sometimes used to describe entities with many, but not all, the criteria of statehood . . . which are nonetheless possessed of a measure of international personality. . . . a term of international relations, and certainly not of international law, it connotes former colonies . . .
— Michael Z. 18:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
From the article intro:
In more recent usage, the term proto-state has most often been evoked in reference to militant secessionist groups who claim, and exercise some form of territorial control over, a specific region, but which lack institutional cohesion.
This cites one source, Griffiths’ Age of Secession (2016). The problem is that the statement seems to be false. Griffiths’ book is a case study that analyses and compares two large datasets. Page 12:
In the first dataset I identify 403 secessionist movements between 1816 and 2011. This is the primary unit of analysis. The second dataset captures the administrative architecture of states. Here I constructed a dataset of 638 proto-states between 1816 and 2011, which are political jurisdictions within state that are above a minimum size and either nationally distinct, geographically distant, indirectly ruled, or else recently transferred from another country. The combined value of these two datasets is that I can separate the formation of secessionist movements from the achievement of secession itself.
Griffiths uses proto-state as his own term of convenience for parts of normal countries, specifically not “militant secessionist groups,” as one of the questions he examines is whether secessionist movements are more successful if they are associated with an administrative entity that qualifies as a “proto-state“ or not. Page 52:
The second dataset consist of administrative units inside sovereign states. Some of the cases will exhibit secessionism, some will not, and some will eventually become sovereign states and exit the dataset. Others will be reorganized or dissolved over time and cease to be proto-states. Some will endure over the entire range of years.
I define proto-states as identifiable administrative jurisdictions with the following traits:
- They have a minimum population of 1000 people and a minimum size of 100 square kilometers and,
- They either possess complete internal independence (indirect rule),
- or they are granted specific rights in accordance with a unit-wide ethnic group or nation,
- or they are the result of a territorial transfer,
- or they are separated from the metropole by at least 100 miles.
As I discuss in Appendix B, this set does not include . . .
Source is from the preview on Amazon. Unfortunately, I can’t find this in a nearby library, and his two lists in Appendixes A and B are not available to me on Amazon.
Anyway, it is clear to me that this article relies on citations of Griffiths heavily does not use the term in the way that he does. — Michael Z. 19:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Pretty simply, I noticed the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (which I shall from here out now refer to as Rojava) is on one of these lists (Secessionist and insurgent), I am not sure that that is an entirely accurate representation, as Rojava's own constitution establishes itself as an integral part of Syria, and intends itself to be a model for a federalised, post-war, Syria, as opposed to seeking secession. Is there another explanation for as to why this is on the list? If such lists were to include other such increased-autonomy movements, or ones that wished to redefine internal jurisdictions within a sovereign state, something like Jefferson state or the movements for devolved Cornish or Northern England assemblies would be similar such ideas. None of which I would think are what these lists are about, and as such I have to question why Rojava is here, certainly I can recognise it may suit a similar list, but not this one. Melias C ( talk) 20:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Should Hawaii be added, due to its long, and historical sovereignty movement? Melias C ( talk) 20:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Describing Taiwan as having "achieved independence" from the PRC is erroneous. They were never actually controlled by the PRC; the ROC territory just shrunk to encompass only Taiwan and a few other territories. I propose that the "parent state" and "date of independence" sections be changed to "N/A" or "-".
PtolemyXV ( talk) 17:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Kosovo, Taiwan, Northerm Cyprus, etc. are not proto states. They have proper state institutions and are nowhere comparable to militant regions like Ambazonia, Donetsk, etc. Beshogur ( talk) 00:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Why is this on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4646:626A:0:3CCC:7ABE:6B4F:E0C1 ( talk) 23:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I believe that the Free State of Bottleneck should be included in the list, as it’s own article (at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_of_Bottleneck) states it’s a quasi-state, but I’m not sure what section to put it under— secessionist or constituent. Can someone add it or let me know what section it should be added under? Should Free France and CSA be added to this list as well? 71.161.115.47 ( talk) 18:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi I just think it's incorrect to put up a map which depicts the Golan Heights as legitimate Israeli territory as it is internationally recognized to be Syria's. Babisgrad ( talk) 15:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of protoestado from es.wikipedia. |
I'd question the decision to replace the constituent and secessionist tables with lists of current and former proto-states. This is redundant information, as it is clearly listed in both existing tables whether the proto-state in question still exists.
On an unrelated note, altering or removing sourced information from these tables and adding unsourced information in flagrant violation of the editing notice is generally frowned upon. -- Katangais (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The Islamic State today is referred to as a former proto-state and now operates primarily as a terrorist organization rather than an emerging unrecognized state. I'd recommend no longer using its height as the primary image / thumbnail of this article. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The column contents of “Achieved Statehood: No, De Facto, De Jure, Yes” are vague, its terms undefined, open to all kinds of interpretations, potentially misleading, and seems unsupportable as original research. We should ditch this in favour of indicating some kind of supportable facts, like international recognition, UN membership, etcetera. — Michael Z. 2020-04-03 16:46 z
Why states of the USA are not included? Like Georgia, Alabama, Florida etc. They are states, they have their own constitutions. Alexxzz123 ( talk) 09:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The United States (1776-1783) is listed under former proto-states. One might elucidate that as the “Thirteen Colonies” or list them individually, but let’s not overcomplicate this list. I think we can safely argue that since the US Constitution has no provision for secession, and since the fifty modern states currently have no intention to secede, then whatever you call them, they are integral parts of a state and not proto-states.
I am surprised the Confederate States of America hasn’t been added. — Michael Z. 17:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
Proto-state be
renamed and moved to
Quasi-state.
result: Links:
current log •
target log
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
References
A term sometimes used to describe entities with many, but not all, the criteria of statehood . . . which are nonetheless possessed of a measure of international personality. . . . a term of international relations, and certainly not of international law, it connotes former colonies . . .
— Michael Z. 18:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
From the article intro:
In more recent usage, the term proto-state has most often been evoked in reference to militant secessionist groups who claim, and exercise some form of territorial control over, a specific region, but which lack institutional cohesion.
This cites one source, Griffiths’ Age of Secession (2016). The problem is that the statement seems to be false. Griffiths’ book is a case study that analyses and compares two large datasets. Page 12:
In the first dataset I identify 403 secessionist movements between 1816 and 2011. This is the primary unit of analysis. The second dataset captures the administrative architecture of states. Here I constructed a dataset of 638 proto-states between 1816 and 2011, which are political jurisdictions within state that are above a minimum size and either nationally distinct, geographically distant, indirectly ruled, or else recently transferred from another country. The combined value of these two datasets is that I can separate the formation of secessionist movements from the achievement of secession itself.
Griffiths uses proto-state as his own term of convenience for parts of normal countries, specifically not “militant secessionist groups,” as one of the questions he examines is whether secessionist movements are more successful if they are associated with an administrative entity that qualifies as a “proto-state“ or not. Page 52:
The second dataset consist of administrative units inside sovereign states. Some of the cases will exhibit secessionism, some will not, and some will eventually become sovereign states and exit the dataset. Others will be reorganized or dissolved over time and cease to be proto-states. Some will endure over the entire range of years.
I define proto-states as identifiable administrative jurisdictions with the following traits:
- They have a minimum population of 1000 people and a minimum size of 100 square kilometers and,
- They either possess complete internal independence (indirect rule),
- or they are granted specific rights in accordance with a unit-wide ethnic group or nation,
- or they are the result of a territorial transfer,
- or they are separated from the metropole by at least 100 miles.
As I discuss in Appendix B, this set does not include . . .
Source is from the preview on Amazon. Unfortunately, I can’t find this in a nearby library, and his two lists in Appendixes A and B are not available to me on Amazon.
Anyway, it is clear to me that this article relies on citations of Griffiths heavily does not use the term in the way that he does. — Michael Z. 19:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Pretty simply, I noticed the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (which I shall from here out now refer to as Rojava) is on one of these lists (Secessionist and insurgent), I am not sure that that is an entirely accurate representation, as Rojava's own constitution establishes itself as an integral part of Syria, and intends itself to be a model for a federalised, post-war, Syria, as opposed to seeking secession. Is there another explanation for as to why this is on the list? If such lists were to include other such increased-autonomy movements, or ones that wished to redefine internal jurisdictions within a sovereign state, something like Jefferson state or the movements for devolved Cornish or Northern England assemblies would be similar such ideas. None of which I would think are what these lists are about, and as such I have to question why Rojava is here, certainly I can recognise it may suit a similar list, but not this one. Melias C ( talk) 20:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Should Hawaii be added, due to its long, and historical sovereignty movement? Melias C ( talk) 20:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Describing Taiwan as having "achieved independence" from the PRC is erroneous. They were never actually controlled by the PRC; the ROC territory just shrunk to encompass only Taiwan and a few other territories. I propose that the "parent state" and "date of independence" sections be changed to "N/A" or "-".
PtolemyXV ( talk) 17:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Kosovo, Taiwan, Northerm Cyprus, etc. are not proto states. They have proper state institutions and are nowhere comparable to militant regions like Ambazonia, Donetsk, etc. Beshogur ( talk) 00:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Why is this on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4646:626A:0:3CCC:7ABE:6B4F:E0C1 ( talk) 23:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I believe that the Free State of Bottleneck should be included in the list, as it’s own article (at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_of_Bottleneck) states it’s a quasi-state, but I’m not sure what section to put it under— secessionist or constituent. Can someone add it or let me know what section it should be added under? Should Free France and CSA be added to this list as well? 71.161.115.47 ( talk) 18:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi I just think it's incorrect to put up a map which depicts the Golan Heights as legitimate Israeli territory as it is internationally recognized to be Syria's. Babisgrad ( talk) 15:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)