Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Missing entries

Nagarno-Karabakh is not officially recognised by the Republic of Armenia. Bilateral political relationship is practiced on a de facto basis. So I've changed the status of Nagarno-Karabakh from "Partially recognized state with de facto control over their territory" to "Unrecognized state with de facto control over their territory".

Shouldn't Somaliland be included in the list?

It is. Ambi 15:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

"broken off from their home country" doesn't really explain Taiwan. Should there be a new section? how should we deal with this? --Jiang 06:24, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I'll try and rewrite it when I get home. I don't think an area needs to be a secessionist region to be listed here - Taiwan still counts as an unrecognized country in my book. Ambivalenthysteria 04:12, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't Kurdistan be listed on this page? MK 05:11, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, because it's not de facto independent. Ambivalenthysteria 11:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What about Kosovo? It's arguably so, but it's a hard call. Ambivalenthysteria 11:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WTF is going on?

I mean I put Sealand on the list or soveriegn countries, it doesn't fit there. So I put it here, someone adds Seborga, which is a very good canidate. Where are all these going? What are the qualifications for listing here? It seems to me that it is a group that claims to be a country but is not regognized by anyone. Both Sealand and Seborga should be listed if my definition is true. So if this is not explained then I will put a disputed sign here too. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 05:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, it's not a list of any random yahoo who claims that they're an independent country. It's a list of mostly functioning independent states that lack either total or partial international recognition. Go off and play with your micronations somewhere else. Ambi 05:25, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, Sealand is not a more or less functioning independent state. Though I added Seborga, it was a reaction on Sealand to be on the list. The best is not to add any of these micronations. Furthermore, one could say that Sealand lacks a people, it is not more than a small bunch of individuals. -- Gangulf 08:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So other than size there would be no problem with listing then? Size is the only contention? I just want it to be clear. --The Sunborn

No, not size, as you full well know. All of these are functioning nation-states, with the sole exception that they lack international recognition. They have a real population (not five crackpots), a real culture, a real army (not five crackpots and a cannon), a real parliament, and a real identity. None of which micronations have. All of those on this list have fought wars and serious battles in the diplomatic arena to survive as a country. The only reason that Sealand and Seborga maintain any sort of "independence" is because they're so insignificant it's not worth the expense to send the police in. Ambi 00:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on the Sealand issue — I just found this discussion very amusing. Some guy claims that size is the only contention, and then someone else replies that it's not about size, it's just that the population is only five people. Can talk pages be listed on WP:BJAODN? Factitious 05:10, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Everything you mentioned is directly correlated to a small population. By the way, functioning nation-states, includes Autocracies. You should know that a parliament not requirement for sovereignty. Parliaments are only new contraptions we had countries long before parliaments. All of those on this list have fought wars and serious battles in the diplomatic arena to survive as a country. Has Sealand not fought in the British and European courts for over 30 years and won every case? Has Sealand not had a coup and counter-coup? The only one of your points that bears merit is the one of culture/identity. If anything this could support your entire claim. I will get back to you on what problems it could get you into though.

For the last time, I am not pushing micronations, I am pushing the inclusion of two special cases that have strong legal basis. You say that listing would dishonour Cyprus and the Taiwan. Well calling Sealand and Seborga mirconations dishonours them. Mirconations by definition have no legal basis. Besides honour shouldn't be a criteria in an encyclopedia anyway. We deal with facts, not personal opinions and honour. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 02:00, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, you highlight another point. Abkhazia and Taiwan don't fight in the Georgian and Chinese courts respectively for their sovereignty - they just have it. They don't recognise any jurisdiction of the courts over their territory. All the others here are in the same boat. Ambi 02:28, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is utter nonesense. If a country is born out of dimplomatic circles and not military would it be any less? Would Quebec not have been a separate nation had its referendum on separation been more than 50%? I doubt that very much, you should too, as your arguement depends on the culture idea. Stick with the Culture/Identity, it is the only thing holding your argument up. --The Sunborn

Of course, if a country is born out of diplomatic circles, it is legitimate. There's a difference between a country being born out of legal circles, and a country that fights in the courts of the country it claims has no sovereignty over it. You'd never see any of these doing the same. Ambi 21:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see it, and I doubt you do. However, I am willing to agree with you that the status quo is correct with restpect to the article with one minor addition. This addition would be the Culture/Identity requirement you talk about, if you make it official and mention it on the aritcle, everything should be fine. I have found no way to argue it and if made a full requirement for listing as you claim that it is already, everything should be fine and I will bugger off this argument. If you don't mention it on the article and claim that it is a requirement for listing then we have resolved nothing. --The Sunborn

I have no objection to this being included in the article. Ambi 12:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Poll on Sealand and Seborga (5/13)

Even if this poll fails to be in my favour, it is clear that the Sealand and Seborga are more than the defintion of microntations. So if it is decided that they don't belong here, they should be listed separately from micronation and linked to separately.

Please add a suggestion how to do that. Gangulf 14:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For listing

1. All qualifications for listing are met. The only reason for not listing would be size. Maybe we should have a list of minute unrecognized countries :p --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 19:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. Of course they should be on that list:
   • They are entities that a non-trivial number of people regard as countries. This warrants mention of the "country" label (which should however be put in context) .
   • They are also not officially recognized by any other relevant entities. This makes them "unrecognized" -- so the list title aptly describes exactly what they are: "unrecognized countries". The word "unrecognized" clearly and appropriately puts the term "country" in context. How much more obvious can you get?
     I would add however that they should be listed neither under the "partially recognized" nor under the "de facto control of territory" heading, as these claims are debatable. In Sealand's case, I would tend towards yes, they do have de-facto control (as they have successfully defended their territory with arms against the British Navy). Still it's probably better to have them in an own section of "No recognition". Ropers 22:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. Sealand should be on the listing - if one accepts a manmade structure can be a territory, it's got a territory, and UK courts have rejected jurisdiction over it. It has enough existence to be on the list. Seborga's different and shouldn't be on the list Jongarrettuk 23:50, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. I beleive Sealand should be included because the British government doesn't seem to activly control anything on that piece of scrap metal. I also want some opinion on Hutt River Province as I think it has a more believable/less crazy claim to unrecognized statehood.--Wilson(cc) 14:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
5. per all the reasons listed above. freestylefrappe 01:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
6. support listing Sealand. --Irpen 09:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Of course. KI 02:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
8. What if I declare independence in my car? Should it be also included to the list? Come on guys, get real!

Against listing

I will let Ambi and Gangulf add their own comments

1. I am against. I think no serious encyclopedia would include these states as unrecognized sovereign states. These countries are justly included in Micronations. -- Gangulf 21:12, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   You're making a mistake there. No one proposed listing them as unrecognized sovereign states. They are unrecognized countries, full stop. The word "sovereign" implies original authority or jurisdiction. Unrecognized countries frequently lack in that department. Ropers 22:21, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   Then move this to List of unrecognized sovereign states. You're confusing recognition with sovereignty. All of the countries on this list have full sovereignty - they are the final authority as to what goes on in their territory, except for the two under the partial header, which only maintain sovereignty over part of it. The only thing all of these lack is recognition. Ambi 00:23, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

2. I'm strongly against what is essentially micronation advocacy. There's an article specifically for that. And now, their proponents, in order to try and give them some legitimacy, try to tack on their cause to those of Taiwan and Northern Cyprus, which is horribly demeaning to the people of those nations. As I said above, there's a big difference between those currently on this list, and these two. Secondly, if we did list micronations here, we'd inevitably end up duplicating the list at Micronation, and if not, we'd have a bunch of edit wars between micronation advocates as to which ones go in. Ambi 00:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. Gzornenplatz 00:35, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
4. A village in Italy and a barge off the coast of England are not "states," "nations" or "countries" under any meaningful definition, and should not be included in any such lists or categories. Seborga deserves an article as an interesting historical anomaly, but it is clearly not a state now, if it ever was. Sealand is just a publicity stunt (one of many of this type, such as Hutt River Province) and should not be dignified by being treated as anything else. Adam 01:21, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
5. "recognition" itself implies sovereign state. these are not sovereign states. --Jiang 03:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

   That makes no sense whatsoever. We are talking about unrecognized nations not recognized ones. By your logic, no nations should be on this list because if they are sovereign then they should be on the recognized list. --The Sunborn

   This is response to Ropers's comment above. This listing is for unrecognized sovereign states, not unrecognized "countries" in general. --Jiang

6. there's already a link to Cat:Micronations Dysprosia 07:03, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7. Seborga seems to be a fictional micronation, as far as I can tell from its somewhat unclear entry, and so shouldn't be on the list. Sealand's different and should be keptJongarrettuk 23:51, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8. Looking at the current list, neither Sealand or Seborga fit in properly. There is a distinct difference between all of these nations and the two micronations. Ambi's list above is a good summarization of those differences. Lyellin 15:34, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
9. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:43, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
10. Jiang 03:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
11. User:Koavf - For the several reasons listed. This would turn into a list of micronations and fictional entities with the inclusion of Sealand, and/or Seborga. There is a clear difference between Northern Cyprus - which functions as a state, and at least has the recognition of Turkey (for all that's worth), versus these non-entities. Justin (koavf) 03:49, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
12. — ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 09:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hutt Province

I do not see any reason to include Hutt Province, taking into account the vote on Sealand and Seborga. I will delete it from the list. Gangulf 21:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

It's somewhat in dispute whether the government in northern Cyprus is a "functioning state" in its own right, as opposed to an occupied territory under the control of the government of Turkey, so I don't think we should state it as fact. --Delirium 03:44, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

According to Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are occupied territories under the control of Russia (well, it's more complicated than that, but that's fairly close to it). The same thing could be argued with Russia in regard to Transdniestria. It could apply to most of these, really. Ambi 05:50, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've vhanged the word "intervention" with the word "invasion". This is the word used in both the Cyprus dispute article and the Turkish invasion of Cyprus article and there has been a lot of discussion there about this issue. --Avg 02:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

About the recognition of a non-recognised state by a substate - i.e. of 'TRNC' by Nakhichevan; it is a good idea to remove it since only recognised states have the ability to recognise (or not) unrecognised states. So, yes, that is fine. Politis 16:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wa state in Burma

Does anybody know anything about the Wa state? Should it be added to this list? [1] — Instantnood 09:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

They don't seem to have any functioning independence at present, although they may have had some in the past. Ambi 11:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly is going on out there. It seems to be having rather stable control of their own territories, and is in good relations with the Rangoon government. Should it be considered historical unrecognised countries then? — Instantnood 21:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Please present more info on the Wa state, I don't have a clue. Gangulf 10:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wa is a Mon-Khmer people of the Austroasiatic family. They are found along the PRC-Burma border. The Wa people in Burma has its own government, and uses Renminbi, the currency of the PRC. The place was not invaded by the British nor by the Japanese. Before the relocation to southern parts several years ago, those who reside in the northern part grew drugs, because the soil there are too poor for crops. This homepage that I searched from Google has some details (though it mistakenly says Kuomintang are communist). — Instantnood 20:16, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I really doubt that Wa is a de facto state Gangulf 21:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are dozens of ethnic groups seeking varying degrees of autonomy and/or independence in various parts of the world. I would class the Wa (along with the Mon, Hmong, Shan and other Burmese minorities) amongst them. They really belong in an article dealing specifically with the issues of autonomy/secessionist struggles, not here. This article is about functioning but unrecognised nation-states as these are traditionally understood.--Gene_poole 22:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we have a list of those somewhere, but I can't remember where off the top of my head - it's been a while. Ambi 05:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam

Does Tamil Eelam count as unrecognized countries?

I personally would guess not, but I don't know enough to make an argument otherwise. Ambi 11:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

According to the Annex to the list of countries, "Places under the control of secessionist or guerrilla movements (e.g. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam)" do not count as de facto independent. 200.124.35.174 18:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The article currently says that Tamil militias have exclusive control over the region claimed as Tamil Eelam but tha article for Tamil Eelam says: "However, Tamil Eelam is not recognized as an independent state by any de jure independent nation or by the United Nations. The government controls most parts of these regions. The LTTE has control over Vanni, Kilinochchi, Mullaiththeevu, most of Mannar and portions of the Eastern districts of Trincomalee, Batticaloa and Amparai."

Since the Sri Lankan government controls most of that area I assume it will be okay if I remove it from this article. 211.27.101.55 09:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hiranland

There might be one more historical de facto independent state in the territory of Somalia named "Hiranland". However, I did not manage to find more information about this state on Internet. User:PANONIAN

Where did you hear of this place? Ambi 11:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I searched for some information about Puntland state, and I found this:

• http://flagspot.net/flags/so-punt.html

Quote: "Since things are still not going better and Somalia is still a no-state country, Puntland can be considered actually independent since 1992 (1998 for the declaration of "no seccession"...) like other "States" in Hiranland, Jubaland, etc."

So, it mention the state of "Hiranland". I do not know was this state actually de facto independent or maybe somebody just proposed its creation.

Google search do not provide much information about "Hiranland":

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=hiranland&btnG=Search

This address is maybe interesting:

• http://www.hiiraan.ca/2003/july03/op/fatah.htm

Quote: "So, what is the solution? For starters, Somalis must stop all attempts to give artificial respiration to the brain-dead state government. That would allow each province, be it Somaliland, Puntland, Hiranland, Middle Shabelland or (yet to be born) Makhirland, etc. time to organize and manage their respective affairs independently, up to secession."

So, here you have two more: "Middle Shabelland" and "Makhirland". Somalia is a fertile ground for the creation of such states. It would be interesting to research whether they really existed or not. User:PANONIAN

---

Anjouan

To the best of my knowledge, and according to the History of the Comoros page, they three islands constituting the country are now in a confederation, and therefore, neither of the three is independent currently. Consider also the World Factbook entry, which states: Unstable Comoros has endured 19 coups or attempted coups since gaining independence from France in 1975. In 1997, the islands of Anjouan and Moheli declared their independence from Comoros. In 1999, military chief Col. AZALI seized power. He pledged to resolve the secessionist crisis through a confederal arrangement named the 2000 Fomboni Accord. In December 2001, voters approved a new constitution and presidential elections took place in the spring of 2002. Each island in the archipelago elected its own president and a new union president took office in May of 2002. While the CIA WFB is of course not independent or neutral, I think we can trust them on this... Can we consent to move Anjouan to the historical section? — ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 09:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Feel free - I knew the current situation with Anjouan, but hadn't realised that it was still listed there. Ambi 09:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

Reasons for deletion in the section "Historic unrecognized states with de facto control over their territory":

1. The regions are not historic. Other than short lived or recently founded they have no historical grounds for suggesting independence.

2. They are not countries, states and some are not even regions. Republika Srpska is a political entity whose territory is stipulated by a peace agreement and still disputed.

3. They were largely founded by thugs and war criminals all of whom are either in jail, on trial or at large with an indictment hanging over their head.

4. 3 of those (Republika Srpska, Western Bosnia and Herceg-Bosna are unconstitutional per constitution of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina which was in force at the time of their creation)

5. Stating these entities is wishful thinking of nationalist fringe who want to instigate their own people and make them fight for a lost cause.

6. If the category here is as broad then you would need to expand a list to well over 1000 regions, countries and entities in Europe who probably have more historical grounds for suggesting independence. To my opinion the whole category is a joke. --Dado 18:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The entities you've deleted are all "historic" (ie they have a documented existence preceding the present day, and are no longer extant) and maintained de-facto control of their territory by force of arms. Who they were founded by, what their constitutional status was, and whether they were promoted by any "fringe" groups or not is irrelevant - they actually existed, and the therefore should properly be documented within this article. If we removed every "unrecognised country" from this article based on your criteria the article would contain no content at all.--Gene_poole 23:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I also see no reason not to list them. — ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 09:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I also see no reason not to list them. I understand you have ideological objections to these entities, Dado, (frankly, so do I), but they nevertheless were de facto independent for a period, and thus belong on this list. Ambi 14:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It is ambigious what you may consider historic as this term is generally used for events that took place in time long enough ago so that a significant research can be done to place those event into a historical context. The section in its title calls for the list of states and the teritories that I deleted do not qualify as states or countries. They were(or are) teritories within a state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. Again if you still want the list to be based on a broad categorization than the title needs to be changed and other regions need to be added. --Dado 01:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Historic in this context simply means that the entities no longer exist in any de facto independent manner - we're not making any judgement as to their significance, which would be a POV violation. All three of those areas are now territories within the states of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. We're not arguing otherwise, nor are we arguing that these entities should have existed. What we're arguing is that they did exist - whether you or we like it or not - and thus that they belong on this list. I'm removing the POV warning - this seems to be more a question of your dislike for the three entities having existed than any question of whether they were de facto independent. Ambi 01:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so but you are still not responding to the arguement that these teritories can be qualified as either states or countries as the title suggests. They simply do not fall under that category by any standards. Otherwise we will need to start naming regions and teritories that were conquered by various armies throughout history where temporary or permanent, war-time governments were established. The whole section will be a mess but if they are not included than there is an obvious effort being made here to push and emphasize teritories in question, for whatever reason, that cannot be viewed as NPOV.--Dado 02:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

All three of those entities were de facto independent from the nations that their land was internationally recognised as being part of. All three of those entities, at least for some period, had a functioning government independent of that in Sarajevo or Zagreb respectively. And none of those three entities were internationally recognised as being independent states. This is why they are on this page. We already do add the governments you describe to this page. Is there any we've missed? Finally, please stop throwing around accusations. I personally agree with you that many of their leaders were war criminals and that they should not have been states of their own, but that does not change the fact that for a few years in the 1990s, they were indeed de facto independent. Ambi 06:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I am not sure what you are trying to say here but three entities were never internationally recognized nor were ever considered as sovereign states. Again they do not qualify as [[country|countries] or states either recognized or unrecognized. Would you call occupied Paris during WWII historic country or region of Third Reich which is now part of France.

Placing aside all moral considerations all I am saying, and I am not attacking anyone so chill, that either the teritories in question need to be removed or the title needs to be changed as it is completely misleading. It gives these teritories attributes of states which cannot be more removed from the truth.--Dado 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

---

"I am not sure what you are trying to say here but three entities were never internationally recognized nor were ever considered as sovereign states"

• She just trying to tell you that this article is about entities, which were never internationally recognized nor were ever considered as sovereign states. User:PANONIAN

Dado, that is the entire point of this list. None of these nations on this list were internationally recognised (except for a couple which had a small number of states recognise them). They were, however, functioning as seperate, unrecognised entities for a while - which is why they are on this list. Ambi 00:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

---

This is the entire point. This is not list of countries. This is list of unrecognized countries. None of these nations are or were internationally recognised, and none were considered as states in the same way as, say, Bosnia or Croatia. That's why Bosnia and Croatia are on list of countries and not here. Occupied Paris during World War I was not a historic country. It was part of occupied France, which was. Whether right or wrong, these three entities made claims of being independent states. They laid claim to certain territory, and had somewhat functioning governments. These are characteristics shared by every entity on this list. We're not making any judgement of their legitimacy or whether they should have been internationally recognised, and I detested their existence just as much as you did. So I'm getting pretty frustrated that you keep confusing this list with list of countries. Ambi 04:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I cannot believe that you do not understand what I am talking about. The entities in question are not countries they are not states either recognized or unrecognized, either having de facto control over territory or not. You simply cannot put them in that category and claim that they were merely not recognized (but otherwise they would function as states). All I did is changed the name of the section to clarify this. If other entities fall under the category of countries or states maybe we can have another section made for entities alone. Entities in question are exactly the same as what you consider Paris to be in WWII. They are (or were) part of occupied Bosnia and Croatia and they had no historical precedent before the war. In fact Herzeg-Bosna was also variously called as “Croatian nationalist supra-organization” created to protect Croatian interests during the war, and Republika Srpska originated similarly as well. Also if you are not taking legitimacy in consideration why are you removing “Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina” and “Bosanska Krajina” entities which equally fall under the same category that you are claiming?--Dado 13:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed the Federation because it is an internationally recognised state, and thus belongs on list of countries, and Bosanska Krajina because I've seen no evidence to suggest that it was in any way ever de facto independent (though if you can show any evidence to the contrary, I'll be happy to change my mind). I'm getting really sick of being accused of supporting these entities because I recognise that, right or wrong, they were de facto independent for a period. Right or wrong, they made the claim to be independent states, and had a functioning government and claims to territory. For gods sake - I personally agree with you entirely that these three entities should not have been created, but this is not the place to take out your grievances. Ambi 15:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ambi, I am not accusing you of supporting any of the entities in question so relax. We are having a simple conversation here. Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was never internationally recognized. You are probably confusing it with (Republic of) Bosnia and Herzegovina which is curetly divided between Federation of BiH and Republika Srpska political entities, which got their status as a result of a peace agreement and their teritories are largely based on the military conquests from 1992-1995 and later agreement in 1995. I think we agree that teritories in question should be called entities as that is their official name. I am objecting to call them states or countries as that suggests an attribute which is incorect. We could put them in the separate category and call them “Unrecognized entities with de facto control over their territory” Otherwise I will need to get counterarguement why should we call them countries or states. It is irrelevant if they claimed to be independent states as they cannot be given that status (dependent or independent). It is as if I proclaimed an independent state of “My living room” . I would have full governing and legal claims to that teritory. It would be rediculous but so it is what this section is currently claiming. I will talk about Bosanska Krajina at a later point. Let’s resolve this first. Please think about this logically--Dado 16:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If the Federation did claim to be independent of Bosnia itself, then I have no objection to including it here. The official status now of any of these, however, is irrelevant. As Panonian described below, they fulfilled many characteristics of states (government, armies, territory, etc, claiming to be seperate from Bosnia or Croatia). They were, in effect, countries - that they were de facto independent while not being internationally recognised, which is why they are on this list. Some of the currently existing ones are equally mad - such as Stalinist Transnistria, but that doesn't change their status as an unrecognised state. Oh, and as for your living room argument - if you did that, it would be a micronation, and you could go list it there. Ambi 02:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Dado, stop this nationalistic crap. You very well know that Republika Srpska, Herzeg Bosnia and Western Bosnia were the proclaimed states of local people who lived there. They simply were not occupied by any foreign army. Also, you very well know that Bosnia and Herzegovina also illegally declared its independence from Yugoslavia. According to the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, for such political change was necessary to all 3 nations which lived there (Muslims, Serbs and Croats) agree to this. You also very well know that Serbs did not agreed with independence of Bosnia, thus the Bosnian independence was completely illegal according to its own constitution. User:PANONIAN

---

Also, whether you like this or not, Republika Srpska, Herzeg Bosnia and Western Bosnia were de facto independent and had de facto control over their territory. They were not occupied by foreign armies, but they were established by local people who lived there. On the contrary, Bosanska Krajina is an geographical region which never was de facto independent. Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was created in 1994 as to say "legal" or "recognized" entity, thus, it do not belong in the "List of unrecognized countries". User:PANONIAN

---

Panonian. Are you at all able not to invoke nationalism when the situation does not suit you. Entities in question were not proclaimed states by people who lived there. Republika Srpska never legally proclaimed independence or statehood. Bosnian Serbs have proclaimed that they as a nation want to live in Yugoslavia in a referendum that only allowed Serbs to vote. That does not mean they get to take half of the sovereign country with them. Putting all nationalism aside here is a short Yugoslavian history for your reference: Yugoslavian constitution called all Republics (including Bosnia) sovereign to the point of independence which is what made Slovenia and Croatia legally secede after Serbia has tipped the power balance to their own side. Vojvodina along with Kosovo was given an autonomous status (I believe) in 1950’s so that this balance can be maintained. In 1991 Serbia illegally abolished their autonomous status’ which off-set the powers and gave Serbia dominance in former Yugoslavia. They further illegally subjugated and overthrew Montenegrin government in 1991 and installed their henchmen. Bosnia wanted to stay in Yugoslavia but not in Yugoslavia where Serbia was a dominant power. Their position was that if Slovenia and Croatia are seceding Bosnia will be merely a Serbian colony (case point Montenegro) or have their sovereignty abolished or jeopardized in a similar way Vojvodina and Kosovo were. This was particularly the concern of the Croatian part of Bosnian population. Bosnian independence was legal and recognized. Personally I wish that Yugoslavia did not fall apart but reasons for that you should start looking for at your own end and quit attacking others for your grievances.--Dado 17:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Listen Dado: can you at least try to understand about what this article speaks? Can you deny that the governments of Republika Srpska, Herzeg-Bosnia and Western Bosnia were in de facto control of their territory? No, you can not! They had every attribute as one de facto independent state - army, police, government, currency, etc. However, they were not internationally recognized as a sovereign states, and that is what qualify them to be included into this article. I think you should learn the difference between words "state" and "sovereign state". There are many states today, which are not sovereign, like Texas or Bayern for example. You also should learn the difference between "de facto" and "the jure" independent states. One state can be "de jure" part of one recognized sovereign state, but "de facto" it can be entity (or state) itself, with "de facto" control over its own territory, but with no international recognition as such. As for your claim that I attacking you, well, the one who observe your edits in various articles can conclude that your primary goal on Wikipedia is a "crusade" against Republika Srpska. I have right to post my observations here, of course. User:PANONIAN

---

Europe, Asia

I do not think that Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Northern Cyprus are geographically located in Europe. These regions have certain political ties with Europe, but geographically they are clearly located in Asia. Opinions about this? User:PANONIAN

Since Cyprus is generally agreed to be in Europe, so's Northern Cyprus. I, personally, think that all three states in the Caucasus (and by extension the ones you mentioned) are geographically (according to some definitions) and culturally (most certainly) European. If there is a consensus to list them as Asian, however, I'll accept that. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I am only talking about geography. Caucasus mountain is a border between Europe and Asia. South of the Caucasus is Asia, and north of the Caucasus is Europe. Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and South Ossetia are located in the south Caucasus in Asia. Cyprus is an island closer to Anatolia (Asia) than to Europe. I am just asking: should we use the geographical or political criteria for this list? Also, is Greenland part of Europe too? It is part of European Union, but it is located in America. How would we define borders of Europe here? User:PANONIAN

• • This has already been a subject of long discussion, I think it was at transcontinental nations... And BTW, Greenland has not been part of the EU since 1985. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

How about Europe-Asia as a compromise? It doesn't matter that much. freestylefrappe 00:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Flags

It is good idea to post flags in the article. However, Kosovo officially do not have flag. This "Kosovo flag" in the article is actually flag of Serbia and Montenegro. Instead of this, I think that flag of United Nations should be posted since Kosovo is UN protectorate. Also, since I do not know how to post more flags into article, here are some other flags, which should be added to the article (if somebody know how to post them, he should do this):

• http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/so-punt.html (Flag of Puntland)
• http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/so-sws.html (Flag of Southwestern Somalia)
• http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/lk-tamil.html (Flag of Tamil Eelam)
• http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/uno.html (Flag of United Nations, should represent Kosovo)

User:PANONIAN

---

More countries

See this article:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_states

There is list of the "Secessionist states" there and some of them should be included here too:

• Cartagena Canton - the haven city of Cartagena, Spain seceded from the First Spanish Republic in 1873.
• Cruzob, achieved independence from Mexico in 1856, but was reannexed in 1901.
• Ezo - declared independance from Japan in 1868 after the defeat of the forces of the Tokugawa shogunate during the Boshin War until it was reincorporated into Japan in 1869
• The Italian Social Republic (Repubblica Sociale Italiana in Italian), also known as the Republic of Salò, was a fascist puppet state in German- occupied northern Italy.
• Manitoba - short-lived republic led by Thomas Spence, declared after the Hudson's Bay Company gave up Rupert's Land and before the government of Canada took control (1867).
• Red River Rebellion - provisional government in Rupert's Land, led by Louis Riel in (1869–1870).
• Rio Grande declared independence in 1840, brought back into Mexico by force less than a year later, encompassed the land of the Mexican states of Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, and parts of the USA state of Texas.
• Rose Island - A tiny island seceded from Italy.
• Tacna and Arica - Disputed territories by the Pacific shore of South America.
• Ukrainian People's Republic - declared independence after the Russian Revolution of 1917, but fell to the Soviet Union in 1920.

Should we include some of those into article as a historical unrecognized states or not? Of course, there is question were these countries recognized or not, but the title "Secessionist states" might indicate that they were not. User:PANONIAN

Yes. The Republic of Minerva should also be included. See Micronation and List of micronations. freestylefrappe 15:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Not again... ::sighs:: There's a difference between actual secessionist states and micronations. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 18:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

What is your point...? Either way they are unrecognized countries. freestylefrappe 18:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No, they're not countries. Read the lengthy discussion about this above - and the overwhelming consensus to keep micronations in Micronation and related articles. Ambi 14:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal. Explanation

I removed an entry from Europe, the "so called" Catalan Countries. The reasons are following:

• This is a list of "de facto" countries, and AFAIK, there isn't such an entity with control over an square inch of territory. So it ought to go to the List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements.
• According to the dates entried (up to 1714), I suppose it refered to the entity that historians (and called themselves ) usually know as Crown of Aragon", which never has been coterminous with the "so called" Catalan Countries. The Crown of Aragon was clearly, in their times, an full international subject. In this case it belongs to a list of extinct states (How and when it was extinct is just another discussion ...)

--Wllacer 09:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Re Hutt River, I put this in before I noticed that it had already been handled before. However, I think that 'micronations' should be included if some criteria are applied, such as size, population, lenght of 'existance' etc. Aslo, any form of pseudo-acceptance should play a part in deciding, eg, do any of the relevant stamp and coin authorities consider its issues legitimate. (My understanding is that they don't in the case of HRP). --Dmol 21:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion in this list

In the articles List of sovereign states, List of unrecognized countries and List of active autonomist and secessionist movements I think it would help the reader a great deal if a clearer distinction is made between these categories:

• a recognized state controlling most or all of its territory

• a de facto sovereign state that lacks general recognition, but still maintains most of the attributes of a functioning state

• an aspirant state, i.e. a group of people concentrated in a singel territory that want either a sovereign state or an autonomous sub-state within another state

Otherwise, it will be difficult to reach a consensus about what to properly call all these entities that may variously either want or have actual control and/or partial recognition. Then there are all those territories that don't want either sovereign statehood nor political union with or incorporation into another state, as well as disputed territories that don't seek independence. --Big Adamsky 19:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

categories

ROC-Taiwan is also "paritialy recognised" - so I separated it. N.Cyrpus and N.Karabakh are also "paritilay" recognised, but only by 1 state. I don't added them, because it seems that this 1-state-recognition is different than Taiwan/Palestine/W.Sahara - it is only of symbolical value for showing the full support of that 1-state.

Also the list seems controversial. Israel is not listed, even when it is only "paritialy" recognised (some states have intentionaly and loudly not-recognised it). It seems that this is because of Israel UN membership (the only difference between Israel and Taiwan in relation to recognition). So maybe we should add to the introduction paragraph a clarification about the applied "UN-filter"? Alinor 12:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Not sure how to use this yet, but I got a message saying that I should explain my changes here. I have edited Abkhazia and South Ossetia entries to be consistent with the corresponding articles. Hope that provides enough explanation. -- User:Irakliy81

Khoikhoi, please be so kind to point out where exactly did you see Georgian POV in my revisions? The fact that independent Georgia was occupied by Red Army in 1921? This is just a historic fact. Please read the article on Democratic Republic of Georgia if you are not familiar with this period. Previous version simply misrepresented some historic facts and I corrected it slightly (actually IMHO more revisions are necessary). Before making any changes please have the decency to explain what you have against my version. (PaC 07:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

First off, Abkhazia is not "in Georgia". Quite the contrary, it, along with South Ossetia is de facto independent. Secondly, you removed information w/o explanation, such as the fact that Abkhazia was independent during 1921, as well as South Ossetia. --Khoikhoi 07:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for this attempt for explanation, but why turn to lies? I removed "the fact that Abkhazia was independent during 1921"? I could not have possibly done this since it was never stated in the article in the first place. Moreover your statement "the fact that Abkhazia was independent during 1921, as well as South Ossetia" is simply not true. Did you not read the article? Did you not see the map? Please refer me to any source that supports your statement. As to my changes... Your version makes an impression that Abkhazia and South Ossetia never had anything to do with Georgia and only first merged with it during Soviet times. This is a blatant POV. I repeat: everything that I added is true and you can't argue with it.

As for "Abkhazia is in Georgia" I simply brought this part in complience with others. Take a look: in the version that you keep reverting to do you see "Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan", "Somaliland ...Located in northwest Somalia", "South Ossetia in Georgia", "Transnistria is the part of Moldova"? Did you see all that? Why then did you not like it only in case of Abkhazia? This is clearly a POV. Either explain yourself more argumentatively or stop reverting. (PaC 08:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Alright, thanks for explaining yourself. I'm very sorry that I didn't take a closer look, as you are correct on these things.

Once again, thanks for you reply. --Khoikhoi 08:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, he was right. My apologies too :-/ --Latinus 08:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just in the middle of my fiery reply :) I also appologize if I wasn't very polite or broke some of the Wikipedia rules. Does this mean I have to revert it myself? (PaC 09:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Or do I wait until your report about "suspected sockpuppetry, block evasion and general abuse of editing privilege" comes back? (PaC 09:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Heh, you can revert if you are sure that you won't violate the 3RR. I can't check the revision history now (technical reasons). If you've made three reverts already, don't revert again for the next few hours. --Latinus 12:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I actually meant that since you are saying that I am right and even apologizing (for the revert?) shouldn't you correct your own mistake? Or I should interpret the apology somehow differently?(PaC 17:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Do internationally unrecognized regimes in otherwise recognized states belong in this list?

I was thinking that the last section Historic unrecognized or partially recognized governments with de facto control over their territory does not list two states whose soverignty was ever widely disputed, but rather it was the regimes that were in place there that the international community did not overwhelmingly acknowledge diplimatically. But their legitimacy as independent states per se was already solidly established. Right? //Big Adamsky 21:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

TRNC

I removed Nakhichevan's recognition of TRNC. It has no reason to be mentioned. the only reason would be in order to show a wider recognition, without such a recognition existing. As long as Azerbaijan has not recognised it, talking about Nakhichevan is ridiculous! just an example: we never say that Transnistria, for example, is not recognised neither by Russia nor by the Autonomous Oblast of Amur!--Hectorian 16:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

East Prussia

East Prussia was never an unrecognized independent state. In ancient times, there lived Old Prussians, who were independent, but were not organized in any state. Later, they were conquered by Teutonic Knights, who estabilished a Monastic State, which was independent until 1466, but not named East Prussia. 1466-1657 it was Polish fief, in 1657 it became independent, but also recognized state, in personal union with Brandenburg.

Puntland

What about Puntland? It's de facto independent, although it does not lay claim to independence from Somalia.  OZLAWYER  talk  18:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Puntland hasnt declared independance. They want to remain apart of Somalia. See Puntland for details. -- RND   ^talk  09:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the other breakaway Somali states (Somaliland, Southwestern Somalia)?

Only Somaliland is seeking international recognition. They lodged a formal request with the African Union in 2004. - Mauco 00:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Assyria

The Assyrian independence should be placed under Unrecognized states with partial control over their territory which encompasses parts of Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran. ILLeSt 12:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I notice a couple of disputes on this page have both come very close to breaking the Three revert rule within the last few hours; please use the talk page constructively to discuss changes. --Robdurbar 09:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

TRNC/Northern Cyprus

Can we have a discussion of this dispute here please? At least give a full explanation for the reverts being made, rather than using talk boxes? Even if you feel the proposed changes are pov or deliberatly in bad faith - note I'm not saying that they are or not, its not an area I know about - at least give a rationale here; it makes a mockery of the talk page if you do not --Robdurbar 15:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is whether we should mention:

The map of the Republic of Azerbaijan that includes it's exclave Nakhichevan (bottom left).

• Nakhichevan which is an exclave (ie. non-bordering province, NOT a country) of Azarbaijan (which has not recognised TRNC as a federal government), and is bordering Turkey (possibly threatened for its continuous sovereignity)! If we start including exclaves, provinces, oblasts, perfectures and municipalities to the list, then it's ok by me.
• Organization of the Islamic Conference which recognises only the Muslim Community of TRNC (as if anybody wouldn't); NOT the pseudo-state of TRNC. The source is within the official site, to which Erdogan (sorry) User:Erdogan Cevher was kind enough to provide us (OIC), but it is not linkable. Evidently in every conference, there's a list of members (that excludes TRNC) and a separete heading (titled Muslim Communities), that includes Muslim Community of Kibris (Cyprus). Also, please check the members-list in the WP article.
• Turkish Peace Action in the wording to replace Turkish invasion. Had it been a "peace action", Turkey would have taken the Nobel Peace prize, instead of international non-recognition.

That's about it. Any comments?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• The Above is wrong: Reference: "Alithia" Newspaper of Greek Cypriots, 16/17 May 2006 (Author: Andreas Fantis, Title of the article: "Is there any hope about the solution of Cyprius Issue"). Andreas Wrote:

Turkish Cypriot State was honorized by the decision of the last meeting of OIC and will participate the meetings of OIC not with the title "Muslim Community of Cyprus" but with the title "Turkish Cypriot State" from now on.

NikoSilver, please read newspapers of your own country. Also, use your real name and surname. Don't hesitate doing this. Stay behind your ideas (even if yours are false). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdogan Cevher (talk • contribs)

The fact that people were being killed by Greeks does not stop it being an invasion; as noted before, D-Day was an invasion; the US/Brits invaded Iraq, rightly or wrongly, even if it was to stop Saddam's killing, even if it was for oil, or revenge, or whatever; its still an invasion. Robdurbar 15:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

D-Day analogy is false: United States and its allies had no legal right to enter France even for the purpose of helping to Frenchs. But in Cyprus the situation is different: According to Cyprus's 1960 Constitution there are 3 guarantor countries that can intervene the situation in Cyprus whenever they wish. Still today in 2007, this guarantorship continues!! and one of the issues discussed in Annan Plan once more. Hence, Turkish interference directly comes from the constitution of Cyprus Rep. and that's why that is not an invasion but an interference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.66.22.10 (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Peace action does seem a very odd word for an invasion... even if you're looking from a Turkish pov. OIC seems a civil society body (though your WP:BEANS link confuses me somewhat). And as for exclaves - well we've not included them up to now so unless it makes claims to countryhood, again, I'd be inclined to agree (though this is all without knowing or going into the situation in detail, so don't take my view as too comprehensive). --Robdurbar 19:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! The WP:BEANS has to do with someone inserting some kind of information is some article... Sorry for thinking that the above was self-explanatory and not getting in the trouble to discuss...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...what he said. ;) Khoikhoi 20:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was set up in northern Cyprus after the Turkish Peace Action on Cyprus in 1974 due to a local Greek Cypriot coup d'etat to overthrow the government and to unify the island with Greece. It was proclaimed the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus in 1975. This state later declared independence under the current name in 1983. It is recognized by Turkey, and the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic. TRNC was accepted as "Turkish Cypriot State" by the Organization of Islamic Conference. TRNC and Republic of Cyprus are on the threshold of being separated like Checkoslovakia = Check Rep + Slovak Rep after the rejection of United nation's Annan Plan by Greek Cypriots. Note: Annan plan aimed at reunification of island.

"Turkish Cypriot State" by the OIC.(Ref:Web of OIC: http://www.oic-oci.org/), click “About OIC”, then click “Observers” to see that TRNC is under the “States” heading with name “T. Cypriot State" 2. Nakhichevan recognizes TRNC. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhichevan under the “Disputes” heading.

The issue of Peace Action / Invasion? How many Turkish Cypriots killed by Greeks and Greek Cypriots killed by Turks before 1974? Answer: Thousands of Turkish Cypriots (more than 100000) and hundreds of Greek Cypriots before 1974. (That is why the population of Greeks in the island well exceeds that of Turks in the island)

How many Turkish Cypriots killed by Greeks and Greek Cypriots killed by Turks after 1974? Answer: Total number does not exceed 5 from both sides.

Then, How a man having brain can claim that Turkish action is an invasion? That action is certainly a peace action and stopped deaths from both sides.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdogan Cevher (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your input. Your complains can be addressed to Kofi Annan.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 13:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Interstingly Nachkivan did reciognise North Cypriot sovereignty [2]; now whether it has the right to do so or not is highly debatable under international law as only other sovereigns are allowed to recgonise sovereignty; but these rules are not set in stone of course. I feel that this might be worth a mention. The OIC is a civil society actor with even less right to recognise sovereignty; this one is more disputable I think, especially as some appear to claim that it is the people who are represented here, not really a state.

• An invasion is an invasion whatever its purpose. Peace action is a modern euphamisim – we didn’t have a Peace action did we?

• I think talk about coup d’etats etc. is a bit over the top and uncalled for here; let the TRNC page deal with that itself.

• Not quite sure about the Czech Republic analogy… this is opinion this bit.

So how about:

The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was set up in northern Cyprus after the Turkish invasion on Cyprus in 1974. It was proclaimed the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus in 1975 and declared independence in 1983. It is recognised only by Turkey, though the non-sovereign Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic has also recognised it. UN proposals to unify the two Cypriot states have since been unsuccessful.ط

Robdurbar 14:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rob for your kind attempt for a compromise in this. Though not necessarily disagreeable, I think that:

• Nakhichevan is legally a province or something analogous.
• OIC we agree (thanks)
• UN mentioning is ok by me, --added.

I strongly believe that extensive analyses are not applicable in this "List of..." and strongly suggest that further details are covered in the respective articles (which is already true).

Fmore, keep in mind that there is only one user doing these reverts lately, who turns out to be a revert addict.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed entirely; the TRNC entry was preivously much shorter than the others anyway and I don't see a need to add more than we have now; it can be tempting sometimes to ignore the contributions of those who refuse to play ball with the wikipedia process but a couple of interesting points were raised, even if it was from a pov manner. --Robdurbar 23:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. To add to your point, if we start elaborating the Turkish POV (on exclaves, civil society orgs, Turkish Peace action etc etc), then under WP:NPOV#Undue weight, imagine what the emphasis/size of the Greek POV and the International POV should be. After that, we'll need to rename the article to [[Turkish invasion of Cyprus and tiny details about unrecognized countries]]...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And btw, I agree to this change of yours too.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I just saw that there were three more attempted reverts by User:Erdogan Cevher, despite the talk, despite the sources, despite the agreement of the other editors and after 3 or 4 blocks for WP:3RR. I don't know if the rest of the editors agree, but I think that this behaviour has crossed the border of WP:POINT. Waiting for your comments and possible action.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I seriously considered obtaining a Wikipedia:RfC on his behaviour; I thought I'd let him get himself banned for antoher 3rr first, however, in the hope that an extended ban might show him how to edit / put him off the topic. In the event of an extended period of 2 reverts a day, then I think we could go further with this. --Robdurbar 21:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Just check also this in the intro par of Cyprus...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I've reported Erdogan for 3RR again - that'll be the fourth 3RR block for him within 5 days. Guess they'll make it a longer one this time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wanna bet a beer he's gonna do it again?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 09:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, weren't you the guy who recently complained you didn't get to perform enough justified reverts? ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! Everybody needs his dose here I guess! Oh, and we have a second attempt in Cyprus in case someone is collecting evidence for that WP:POINT vio. And how about that name Erdogan?  Karamanlis! ^{(T) @ (C)} 09:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh, let's be fair to the guy - "Erdoğan" is just very common in Turkish, both as a first and a family name. Let's not make fun of that, it may very well be his real name. And I'm not quite getting what you mean by WP:POINT? He's just edit-warring, that's a different kind of thing, isn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know that many Turks to have encountered the name before. I always thought it was a surname and it seemed to me like it wanted to sound more like the PM of Turkey. Point stricken.

Now for the other thing: He's not just edit warring. We have invited him repeatedly in the talk, but appart from the somewhat irrelevant comment above, we have received no further response to what 4 editors here (and a couple more outside the talk) seem to consider logical and obvious. We only communicate through edit-summaries, where we reply that OIC is a civil society org, and that Nakhicevan is a province, and that peace action (!!!) is peculiar wording for invasion, but he responds with the same irrelevant argumentation. He further expanded his POV to Cyprus. What can we do after 3-4 3rr blocks he's already had? I am sure there will be more, and that there won't be any comment whatsoever here, because the thing is so obvious (even for blind or uninformed) that at first I and the other counter-reverters didn't even want to discuss it formally. I don't know how you call this, but I definitely think it is disruption of WP.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no doubt that the blind edit warring is disruptive, absolutely. After all, that's why we're getting him blocked all the time. But WP:POINT is really about something else in my understanding, it's about subtle ways of disrupting by doing something you don't really mean, like AfD'ing good articles in order to demonstrate how other people's AfD criteria are wrong, that kind of thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok Mr."Syntax Error", maybe you're right. Let's see where that goes... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-birth of the TRNC/Northern Cyprus debate

Wiki contributor Rebecca changed the text in the TRNC entry so I sent her this meesage, which I quote again below. If anyone wishes to change the text again, will he (or she) be kind enough, please, to first address the points I'm raising? Thanks in advance.

You removed almost everything from the entry for Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, with this comment : "Can we please just keep this simple? I'm sick of this page being used as yet another battleground for the Cyprus POV warriors".

Allow me to respond with some points:

(1) Contentious and controversial issues need not be keep "simple" in order to avoid conflicting points of view. If we were to do that, we'd have no more than a phrase under the entry for Palestine - or maybe we'd be disputing the use of the very word!

(2) The removal of text as irrelevant to the main entry is sometimes correct, sometimes not. In the case of the countries (or "countries"!) listed in the entry List of unrecognized countries, a small, concise description of their background seems to me to be essential. As a wiki user who's looking for information about the not widely or universally recognized countries, I'd be most certainly interested to trace common elements in their background (if any), the ethnic mix involved, the political/economic aspect, and so on. The full treatise is to be left, of course, for the entry of the specific country, of course, but general information must be provided in that article. So, IMO background is essential. Merely stating which countries recognize the TRNC, for instance, doesn't say much.

(3) The deleted portions of the text were as factual and as objective as possible. I'd challenge, in fact any Greek- or Turkish-Cypriot to dispute (with facts) anything in the text you removed. The Gnome 13:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that the previous problems with Edrogan Cevehr have resulted in an over-cautionousness from some people on this issue. Whilst I have no real problem with the current one sentence, if you compare the TRNC to the Abkahzia entry, for example, its much smaller and less informative. I agree that we shouldn't allow one POV pusher to let us label everyone who changes the entry as such, or make us scared to comment on the TRNC.

At the same time, truths or facts about this that seem obvious or givens to people who have experience with the situation - such as The Gnome - may not seem so obvious or unquestionable to people with less knolwedge of the TRNC.

Thus, I would suggest that if we want to expand the current TRNC entry to the lenght of, say the Republic of China, then we need to decide the issues that are vital to a brief knowledge of the situation.

From my current understanding, these would be:

• Turkish invasion in response to worry that Greece wanted to annex Cyprus
• Declared independence in 1983
• Recognised only by Turkey
• Reunification plans failed, most recently the Annan plan in a referrendum
• The whole island part of the EU, as the Republic of Cyprus (though TRNC is de facto outside of EU)

Robdurbar 19:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Gnome 10:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)I agree with Robdurbar in most of the points made above. I find particularly important for Wikipedia the point that "we shouldn't allow one POV pusher to let us label everyone who changes the entry as such, or make us scared to comment on the TRNC". Wikipedia is open to everyone, so the potential for abuse and vandalism is virtually part of the project! But if we allow a small minority of vandals and miscreants to silence objective presentation of facts or stifle debate, then the whole Wiki project might as well fold - and become a restricted/subscription website.

I disagree with Rebecca's broad dismissal of my arguments, which I tried to present as clearly and sombrely as possible above, and her deletion of the text, once again. Rebecca only posted this aside: "While some context may be necessary, a very long paragraph which keeps being the subject of innumerable edit wars is simply unnecessary". Again, I beg to differ, for the reasons already presented. Rebecca does not suggest that the text was erroneous but she deletes it because it causes edit wars. I'm sorry but if I start maliciously editing Wiki entry XYZ for weeks on end, on account of some agenda of mine, should that mean that the text of entry XYZ must be amended or shortened because of my "edit wars"?

I expect a response in depth and not just casual comments, which moreover I find counter-productive. In the meantime, let's try and work towards the lines suggested by Robdurbar.

I've got no objections to Robdurbar's suggestions per se, but I'd be wary about making it much longer if for no other reason than this is meant to be a list. Every other entity on this list (with the exception of the probably-too-long ROC and Abkhazia) limits a description to about three lines, and I see no reason why we need to go into special detail for Cyprus. Rebecca 10:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing too, is that a short un-descriptive entry only inivtes trolls/pov pushers to add their own view and claim 'well its too short, you're hiding the facts'. An agreed upon, fuller version can be defended as a consensus description of events. I agree that don't want to add too much - about 1/2 more lines max.

With that in mind, I would propose (approximately) the following as the full entry:

• The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was set up in northern Cyprus in 1975 after an invadinson by Turkish forces in 1974, who believed that Greece was attempting to annex the island. It declared independence in 1983 and, although a fully fuctioning state, it has only been recognized by Turkey. Plans for reunification have failed, most recently the Annan Plan.

--Robdurbar 18:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Rebecca 23:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should also be a notice that the whole island is an EU member (under the name Cyprus, although the north is de facto out of it. in addition, the sentence although a fully fuctioning state, it has only been recognized by Turkey, seems a bit obscure: as if blaming the others who do not recognise a functioning state as Turkey did. talking about this, it is not a "fully" functioning state, since it depends on Turkey almost on everything!: monetary matters, economy, trade, diplomatique affairs, not to mention the turkish troops that form the 1/4 of the population... I am not asking to accept the greek POV and list it as occupied territory, but i would not agree in a version that pictures it as Taiwan... --Hectorian 02:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK; though bare in mind a number of states rely on others for certain matters such as defence and trade e.g. Andorra, though they would still be considered 'fully functioning'. Also, as for the EU, I noticed that when I went through customs at Luton Airport it said that 'all people from areas of Cyprus not in de facto control by the government of the Republic of Cyprus should enter as non-EU citizens' (or something to that affect). I think you make some good points, so:

• The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was set up in northern Cyprus in 1975 after an invadinson by Turkish forces in 1974, who believed that Greece was attempting to annex the island. It declared independence in 1983 and has only been recognized by Turkey. Plans for reunification with the Republic of Cyprus have failed (see Annan Plan). In 2004, its territorty was accpeted de jureinto the EU as part of the Republic of Cyprus; it remains de facto outside of the EU, though.

--Robdurbar 09:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job. I agree on that. About the Luton Airport thing u noticed, it's true, of course... de jure it has all EU privilleges, but de facto none! (e.g. the percentange of the EU budget that would be spend for TRNC, is not used by Cyprus. it is not spend till the dispute is solved...) --Hectorian 00:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In order to be consistent with the mode of brevity and impartiality that has been adopted for these entries, I suggest that the bolded portion in the following phrase be removed : "...was set up in northern Cyprus in 1975 after an invasion by Turkish forces in 1974, who believed that Greece was attempting to annex the island". Anything that invites retort should be eliminated, if we are to stay firmly on the impartiality path.The Gnome 05:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure. If I were to approach this from a Turkish viewpoint, I would feel that this is a rather important point. --Robdurbar 17:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"From the Turkish viewpoint" ?! This is not how wikipedia entries are supposed to be judged by. I still find offering only one side's reasons/pretexts to be wrong. If we allow "...who believed that Greece was attempting to annex the island", then we must also provide the Greeks' and the Greek-Cypriots' POV. (Actually, having a balanced POV should be considered a given fact oof wiki!) The Gnome 08:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not have to be removed. we have to mention the turkish invasion, since this was the beginning of the TRNC. but since we mention this, we also have to say why Tyrkey invaded. so, in order to be NPOV and accurate, we have to say the reason (pretext, from the greek viewpoint) about it, id est who believed that Greece was attempting to annex the island: maybe Greece had such intentions, but never actively tried. so, we just state the fact. --Hectorian 18:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

State of Palestine

What is the official status of Gaza strip after the withdrawal of Israel in 2005?

I believe that the both the PNA and the UN take the official position that Gaza is still under Israeli occupation. (Israel controlls the water supply, airspace, and territorial waters, for instance). The West Bank and Gaza aren't universally recognized as being under anybody's legal sovereignty. I'm pretty sure that Egypt never officially annexed Gaza, and nobody but Britain recognized Jordan's claims to the West Bank (which Jordan has now renounced anyway).

As somone said above, lists aren't places of in-depth analyses, but I do think the Palestinian issue needs a bit more of an in-depth treatment here. The "State of Palestine" declared in 1988 was in essence a "government in exile", as all of the territory it claimed was under Israeli control (and much of it under UN-recongized Israeli sovereignty) at the time. My understanding was the that PLO assumed the role of this government in exile at this point. The Palestinian National Authority was set up in 1994 to administer areas that have varied in scope after the Oslo Accords. The PNA was clearly intended to be an embryonic Palestinian state, but as we all know the agreements that would have been necessary to bring that state to term never happened. Instead, the PNA started acting more and more like a state (it has elections, government ministries, issues passports, accredits ambassadors) but never declared itself to be such. I think that there is a distinction between the Palestinian National Authority on the one hand and the PLO and the notional "State of Palestine" on the other. Up until this year, this distinction was largely theoretical, as the same people were running both entities, but it became less so when Hamas, which I believe is not part of the PLO, won the legislative elections there.

Anyway, the whole thing's a mess, and I'm not sure of all the details. Still, the current blurb doesn't even explain the situation on the grown in Gaza or the WB, which I know is a contentious subject, but still. How about the following?

• The State of Palestine was declared in 1988 and recognized by a series of Arab and Muslim countries. Since 1994, the Palestinian National Authority has provided government some services to and exercized military control of parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, though it has not declared itself to be the government of an independent state. (See also proposals for a Palestinian state, Palestinian territories, Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Israel all of which include articles about areas in the Palestine region.)

--Jfruh (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right. --Robdurbar 23:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Messing with the system

This talk-page has been vandalised in order to justify an allegged consented version of the article! A relevant note has been posted at WP:ANI#List of unrecognised countries for further investigation.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

39 Nations That Do Not Recognize Israel

Where it says that 39 Nations Do Not Recognize Israel, there is a link to Israel's foreign policy page. There should be a list of those nations either under the Israeli foreign policy page, the unrecognized nations page, or a seperate page altogether. The statement should also be referenced.

Edits by Nixer of July 28th

The above user made the following two important changes on July 28th. I have a few qeustions for her/him or any others who can clarify:

Palestine

• Moved Palestine to the section of partially recgonised states with de facto control over their territory. Do they have control or not? Most results from a google search claim that Israel still enjoys de facto control over Palestine. --Robdurbar 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  In fact most claimed territory of this entity is not occupied.--Nixer 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think we should consider Palestine as a partially recognised state with de facto control over its territory. In fact, Palestine has no effective control over its territory. Most of West Bank and Gaza are under Israeli occupation and the external borders of Palestine are heavily guarded by the Israili army. Am I wrong? --Wikiturk 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe, also, that the Palestinian state and the Palastinian Authority, the latter of which control the 'Palestinian lands', are seperate entities? --Robdurbar 09:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Georgia

• Put a neutrality tag in the 'Unrecognized states with de facto control over their territory' section. Why?--Robdurbar 14:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  It seems that some portions in this section reflect views of Georgian nationalists, which cannot be called NPOV.--Nixer 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, could you be more clear? Most of the editors here are not familiar with each paticular case. Which parts do you think reflect a Georgian POV? What do you think the reality or alternative points of view are? --Robdurbar 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority and State of Palestine

The State of Palestine is grouped under the section for states of de facto and at least partial control over their territories. Should the State of Palestine be seen as the same vehicle as the Palestinian Authority? If not, in what way is the State of Palestine having de facto control over any part of its claimed territory? — Instantnood 04:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

See the above talk which is trying to establish why this change occured! --Robdurbar 19:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of Bakassi

This seperatist "nation" was mentioned here: [3]. Might be worth considering.

"The people have declared their own republic, known as the Democratic Republic of Bakassi. We will no longer have anything to do with Nigeria, since Nigeria does not want anything to do with us," said Tony Ene, the interim head of the movement. -- RND  T  C  09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Another article here [4] about it, looks a bit amateurish imo. -- RND  T  C  19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah; the bodies on this page appear to be far more established than this lot. --Robdurbar 21:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir

I'm pretty sure the adminstration of Azad Kashmir is loyal to Pakistan. Some Kashmiris want to be part of India, some part of Pakistan and some to be independent. However to my knowledge those wanting to be independent do not control any territory. Azad Kashmir is under the firm control of Pakistan. Therefore can I remove this entry? AndrewRT 21:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not only they do not control any territory, but also they have not declared independence in the international or regional fora. i think it should be removed. --Hectorian 22:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Shan?

I don't think Shan should be listed on this website. I went to the Shan entry in wikipedia and the site says nothing about the state breaking away from the Myanmar central government. A previous version of the website mentions a government in exile, but there was no indication that this exile government held any territory. I would doubt that a breakaway state could exist in Myanmar considering how strict the military government is. I say Shan should be deleted.Inkan1969 19:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree there appears to be little evidence for it. Suggest that people are given 48 hours to defend its inclusion... --Robdurbar 22:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Shan State is a well-known legitimate, violent secessionist attempt that has been ongoing for at least half a century in Burma. They are a member of the Unrecognised Nations and People's Organisation (see this entry). They should certainly not be deleted. --Gene_poole 08:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong list. They don't appear to have any sort of functioning separate state, so they need to be on the list of secessionist groups, not here. Rebecca 10:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rebecca. The link provided by Gene does not mention any territory that Shan resistance groups could be holding, unlike the case with the Tamil Tigers. The situation to me resembles that of Tibet. There's a very active secessionist movement but it holds no territory. Inkan1969 13:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel

It appears that Malaysia and Indonesia do not recognise Israel's right to exist, however Israel is not listed here. Should there be unrecognised countries that are exempted from this article like Israel, and are there more exempt nations? —Tokek 14:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting point. However, I think this page is just for those countries not recognized by the majority of nations. However, we could open up another section...? --Robdurbar 15:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree interesting point. I think a new section would be good - Countries not universally recognised? I wouldn't want to expand to countries which are only not recognised by, say, one or two other countries. AndrewRT - Talk 20:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think countries that are members of the UN fit on this list. Rebecca 02:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Doing a quick and dirty research, it seems like it is more than just Indonesia and Malaysia. While Jordan and Egypt recognises Israel, it seems like other Arab League nations, plus Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan do not, which turns out to be about 2.5 times the population of the United States. But lets say that some partially recognised nations should be exempt from this article, because they are a member of the UN, or for any other such reasons. Are there other partially recognised nations besides Israel that are currently exempt from the article? Where can I find a list of such nations? —Tokek 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Peoples Republic of China springs to mind with 24 countries that don't recognise it (they recognise the Republic of China instead). Apartheid-era South Africa also springs to mind. The Holy See only has diplomatic relations with 174 nations. The more I think about it the more I'm coming round to the view that only countries where most of the world doesn't recognise it should be included here, or else we are gettign away from the point of the article. AndrewRT - Talk 14:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, it could make an intersting addition to the page. Alternatively, we could farm out some of the entries to List of partially recognized countries and add them onto there? At the moment it would be controversial - to say the least - to have Israel on a page called 'list of unrecognized countries'. --Robdurbar 19:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot about PRC, the Vatican, & apartheid South Africa. There are several former apartheid homelands listed in the article, btw. I don't know, but it sounds somewhat counterintuitive for a country to be not listed because it's not insignificant enough. —Tokek 12:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam Restored

I restored Tamil Eelam after an anonymous editor deleted it. The editor sounded like he/she did this motivated by personal dislike of the Tamil Tigers, which is not a valid reason to delete the entry.

Also, a bot deleted the image of the Flag_of_Tamil_Eelam over at its Wiki entry. Could someon please restore that flag image, so that we could use it for this entry as well? Inkan1969 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Osgoodelawyer posted a new T.E. flag. Thanks. Inkan1969 22:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

I changed the Wziristan link to connect with the new Islamic Emirate of Wziristan entry. Inkan1969 22:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Greenland

Should Greenland be mentioned on this page? I think the fact that Denmark is part of the EU, but Greenland is not, and that Greenland conducts its own international relations, indicates that it is moving ever closer to independent statehood. Is there some criterion that Greenland does not fulfill to be on this page?

No declaration of independence. If they don't recognize themselves that they are a separate country, neither can we. - Mauco 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Asia - Tibet

I removed the contents about the Nepalese Mission in Tibet and the alleged Tibeto-Mongolian Treaty of 1915:

• [1] The Nepalese representatives, namely Vakil, stayed in Tibet even after the region formally became part of Communist China and, therefore, has nothing to do with recognizing Tibet's independence.
• [2] Tibet and Mongolia are said to have sign a treaty in 1915 recognizing each other's independence; however, according to his British advisor named Charles Bell, the 13th Dalai Lama denied that he has signed or ratified any treaty with Mongolia and, most importantly, no official publications regarding the said treaty has ever been released. - 219.73.9.169 14:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Asia / Europe

Last time I checked, the Caucasus region was included in Europe, not Asia. That would mean the references to Ajaria, Nakhichevan, the Talysh-Mughan Autonomous Republic and the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic should all be placed in the Europe section of the Historic unrecognized or partially recognized states with de facto control over their territory list, rather than the Asia section. Pedrocelli 00:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That region is included in both the Europe and Asia entries. Some people do consider Georgia/Armenia/Azerbaijan part of Asia. Inkan1969 05:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Recognized States not really existing

This is a very good and very interesting page, but I suggest a little changement to list the countries which are (fully or partially) recognized, but which have no control of their territory. I'd list: 1) Palestine, recognized by many States (also by UNO?), but whose territory is under Israel's military occupation; 2) Western Sahara, recognized by many States and by African Union Organization (also by UNO?), but whose territory is under Morocco's military occupation; 3) Afghanistan, recognized by UNO and all States, but whose territory is under USA's military occupation; 4) Iraq, recognized by UNO and all States, but whose territory is under USA's military occupation; 5) Somalia, recognized by UNO and all States, but whose legitimate government lives in exile (in Kenya), while the country is de facto divided into different States (Somaliland, Puntland, Jubaland etc). Val>>>>>>

Pontus

I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THE REPUBLIC OF PONTUS IN PRESENT DAY COUNTRY OF TURKEY.IT WAS REESTABLISHED IN 1917 AND IT WAS CEASED IN 1919 IN THE NORTHERN REGION OF TURKEY ALONG THE BLACK SEA COAST.THE PONTIAN PEOPLE LIVED THERE FOR 3000 YEARS,THEY WERE MOSTLY UNDER THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE,THEY WERE RENAMED EMPIRE OF TRABIZOUND,AND THEY WERE UNDER OTTOMAN EMPIRE OCCUPATION UNTIL 1917,WHEN THEY DECLARED THE REPUBLIC OF PONTUS.IN 1919 KEMAL ATATURK ORDERED THEIR GENOCIDE AS HE DID WITH THE ARMENIANS AND THE REPUBLIC CEASED TO EXIST.TODAY PONTIANS LIVE MOSTLY IN GREECE,USA,CANADA,AUSTRALIA,GERMANY,RUSSIA,GEORGIA AND EVEN PRESENT DAY TURKEY AS MUSLIMS WITH PONTIAN DESCEND.I BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED SOMEWHERE HERE.GEORGE KOSMO

Hawaii

Why is the Kingdom of Hawaii on this list? It was as widely recognized as Siam. Septentrionalis 13:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

the Kingdom of Hawaii was widely Recognised as Siam?? hmm thats news to me... wasn't Thailand widely recognised as siam? Maku desu 08:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you mean Hawaii was recognized by Siam? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.180.7.125 (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

• No, Septentrionalis said the Kingdom of Hawaii was as widely recognized as Siam. That is, both Siam and Hawaii were widely recognized -- which, in fact, they were. I don't know what countries the Kingdom of Hawaii might have been interested in conducting diplomatic relations with that they were unable to do so -- they did have relations with the United Kingdom, France, the United States, and other major countries. --Metropolitan90 07:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Manchukuo

Recognized by 23 states? List and source please; 3 is attested by contemporary sources. Septentrionalis 14:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Unrecognized countries or secessionist teritories?

In my opinion, calling those entities as "unrecognized countries" is POV, this is why I believe that correct title should be "List of secessionist territories". They are not recognized as "countries", other enciclopedias don't list them as countries, if Wikipedia call them countries is like considering legitimate their demands, which contradicts WP:NPOV. "Secessionist territory" is a more accurate description (not for all cases, as Republic of China, for example, didn't officially ask for secession from China) and does not mean rejecting the legitimacy of their secessionism, is just a fact.

I believe that those who want to call those entities as "countries" instead of "territories" are pushing POV. Same person removed the correct clasification of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria, which are controlling only a part of their claimed teritories (info which can be founded in corresponding articles in Wikipedia). I wait for explanation from the other side, to defend their edits.--MariusM 21:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling them "territories" is just as POV, since it rejects the fact that they are de facto independent (and therefore countries). They are also not "secessionist" (at least the first group of them), since they have already seceded. Finally, minor territorial disputes are not enough to move entities from "control" to "partial control" since this means practically no entity which is unrecognized is going to be considered to have full control. As long as the vast majority of the territory is controlled, it should be considered controlled. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 23:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not want to be the first to comment on MariusM's proposal, because I don't want him to feel that I am singling him out for abuse. But the proposal IS of course POV, despite the fact that MariusM will never admit it. This editor (MariusM) is involved in some very nasty content disputes with me on a large number of Transnistria related articles. I accuse him of pushing his POV and he accuses me of the same. His position is that Transnistria is best described as a rebel region which is almost not even secessionist since, in his eyes, the founding fathers behind the declaration of independence were not the people of the region but outside forces. He has been taken to task over this by a number of editors, including one who is a U.S. based specialist on the history of Transnistria, and his proposal to change the title of this list must be seen in light of his own personal POV. I am not saying that he is right or wrong, I am merely pointing out what he has not done: That he has a POV and a vested interest which he has not disclosed here. Finally, may I suggest a Google check: The phrases "unrecognized states" and "unrecognized countries" rank higher than other alternatives, and seems to be the commonly accepted denomination. On this basis alone, I would not change the current title of this list. - Mauco 00:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

De facto independence of those teritories is debatable. Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia may be independent from Moldova or Georgia, but not from Russia. All of them want to join Russian Federation, their secesionism is in fact an expression of Russian expansionism, and was created with the help of Russian Army. Big number of people leaved those regions as result of separatist regimes (they "voted with their feets") - is about 50% of pre-war Abkhazian population and 20% of pre-war Transnistrian population. In other territories situation can be different, however calling them "countries" is not accurate, as they are not recognized as countries by the vast majority of nations. Mauco, your POV was rejected not only by me, but by the majority of people involved in the article Transnistria. I am suspecting pro-Russian expansionism POV here, as I see the same persons who want to list Abkhazia, S Osetia and Transnistria as countries are refusing the same thing for Chechenia.--MariusM 00:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, independence from the host country and being someone else's puppet regime are too different things. There are plenty of recognized states which are still foreign puppet regimes. As such, the heavy dependence of these territories from the Russian support does not affect their eligibility to be listed here. They de-facto evicted the gov within whose internationally recognized borders they belong. --Irpen 03:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opnion it should be called List of seseccionist territories, as the wording like “unrecognized country” opens a discussion about the definition of the word country. What is a country and can an unrecognized self-proclaimed entity be called a country in a legal sense of this term, if there’s a legal definition of it at all? “Seseccionist territory” allows to avoid such controversial terminology. Grandmaster 07:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well without bandying about accusations of bias straight away, I'm sceptical about the move. Although I'd appreciate Grandmaster's comment about the word country - it is a vague term which though origianlly meaning sovereign state has been used in a number of other ways (Scotland) and often as a synonym for nation.

However, if we look at this rationally, I would actually propose a new move to List of unrecognised states. This is because:

• Country is used in a number of ways (as mentioned above). What's to stop me adding Wales or Waloonia or the Basque Country to this list, under the wording of its title? Nothing. The list is actually of breakway-states or entities which operate as states
• Sececcionist territories doesn't really cover all the entrys of the list e.g. Western Sahara or Holy See.

Obviously, state has its issues too - it will be just as unpalatable to those who don't want to see the word country in the title - but it does reflect what these entities are, or at least trying to be more. More importantly, it reflects the criteria that we are using to decide what should be on the page and indeed the article's first line which reads: 'Several geo-political entities in the world have no general international recognition, but are de facto sovereign states.' --Robdurbar 09:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the article should be separated. It's biased (this is a fact) to refer to Transnistria etc as "countries" as it implies legitimacy. Even the BBC refers to Trnasnistria, Northern Cyprus etc as "teritories". Franky, I wouldn't mind "separatist regimes" as a title for the split article.--Tekleni 10:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Then again, is it correct to call an entity that does not exist de-jure a state? That’s why I think the word “territory” is more preferable, it is more neutral. Grandmaster 10:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This move made in a bad faith attempt to force the POV without consensus reahced at talk needs revertred as per an ArbCom ruling about such dirty tricks move with addition of artificial history. ArbCom ruled on that in AndriyK case. Tekleni (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) should be warned in strongest possible terms for bad faith multiple times moving of the articles. Just today, he moved this one twice! --Irpen 10:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware of that. I was just doing what Ghirlandajo did here.--Tekleni 10:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You did not know what? Ghirlandajo returned the article to its stable name which, if you want changed, you need to propose the change and wait for consensus. As yours and MariusM's moves were made in defiance of consensus he wars right to revert it. Yours and user:MariusM's moves are unacceptable. Such practices are likely to add entries to the user's block log. --Irpen 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He did the same thing as me, only it has now been deleted [5]. Also, threats aren't allowed.--Tekleni 12:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, arbcom cases are generally specific and do not provide guideline rulings. As far as I'm concerned, re WP:BOLD, Tekleni had the right to move the page; but equally, other users should retain the right to move it back. Per WP:MOVE, WP:3RR and WP:TALK, the page should then have been left as it is and the discussion on the matter moved to here, as has happened. --Robdurbar 12:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom cases are specific as long as they don't contain rulings to the contrary. Please check the case in question before posting general observations. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As you've noticed, I have move-protected the article to stop the move warring, and I've also cleaned up all three soiled redirects. Please all parties refrain from using that trick, this goes both for Tekleni and Ghirlandajo (and yes, I think the Arbcom ruling is pertinent). The article is now at the stable version it used to be in for the last few months; like Robdurbar I think it should have been left there by all parties once it was clear there was dissent about the moves. Please work out a consensus and then do a clean WP:RM. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, taking on board some of the ideas mentioned above, if users are serious about this move, we could have a straw poll to see where the land lies? I'm not a massive fan of votes, but I think one could be indicative here? --Robdurbar 18:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No, please don't start down that road. This is a politically heated issue. There is bound to be vote shopping, socks, and all kinds of other abuses (from both sides). Why don't you identify the 3 or 4 alternatives and then do a Google test, for starters? Another thing to keep in mind is that this list includes quite a few historically unrecognized states, but not all of them were secessionist territories. The headers "unrecognized countries" or "unrecognized states" would be all-inclusive, but the header "secessionist territories" or "secessionist regions" would be misleading for many of those. - Mauco 23:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

But equally, all of the entities on this page are 'notable', or at least colatable as a group, due to their secessionist aims. I wouldn't have a problem with states and think it would more actively reflect what we're including in the article - there are a number of 'countries' - or entities that take that vague term - that are not recognised politically and are not here. I have no massive problem with countries and think that it may be the best of a bad bunch. --Robdurbar 00:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I voice agreement with either 'unrecognized countries' or 'unrecognized states'. Both are used widely, and both are fairly all-inclusive. The alternatives are neither widely used, nor are they all-inclusive (especially when it comes to the historical situation). - Mauco 00:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is best to use 'unrecognised countries' rather than 'unrecognised states' as 'State' can imply an internal county such as New York State. Mark us street Nov 28th 2006.