Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria

The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine recently made the decision to declare the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria to be "temporarily occupied by Russia". However, while some sources say that it is a recognition of Ichkeria, other claim it's only limited to declaring it to be illegally occupied. Underfell Flowey (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

If it’s considered temporarily occupied by Russia then it can’t be a legal part of Russia. I believe the Russian Federation de facto recognized Ichkeria as a sovereign state when it signed the 1997 Russia–Chechnya Peace Treaty. It is a valid POV that it invaded a sovereign state in the 1999 Second Chechen War and has occupied its territory. Worth considering. Can you provide some sources on the Ukrainian declaration, or even better on Chechen sovereignty? —Michael Z. 20:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

While many Ukrainian media report it as a recognition of souvereignity or independence, there is a report by Meduza that says that, while it recognizes the territory of the state to be temporarily occupied, it does not recognize its independence or souvereignity (at least for now). I think it's fair to not include Chechnya here, unless the bill recognizing its souvereignity also passes soon, which seems to be on Rada's agenda since the 6th of September. Underfell Flowey (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

agree, that was my understanding also last night. Labrang (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I would certainly oppose inclusion with the sources we have now, because it's not at all clear from the sources that were put in the article that this was actual diplomatic recognition as a sovereign state, rather than symbolic recognition of something else. Kahastok talk 18:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It is possible to recognise a territory as de facto under occupation whilst at the same time recognising as de jure a sovereign state. Take the example of the three Baltic States under Soviet rule (as I've explained below). In terms of recognising something "symbolic", I could equally argue that Russia's recognition of Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast as independent countries was symbolic in nature since Putin never intended for those entities to actually function as sovereign states. Russia annexed them within a day of recognising them as independent from Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

My understanding (which might not be correct) is that Ukraine has recognised Chechnya as a sovereign state, but the bill needs to be signed and ratified by Zelenskyy in order to be fully accepted into Ukrainian law. Indeed, if Ukraine has "recognised Chechnya as an occupied territory", that is effectively the same thing as recognising Chechnya as a sovereign state. If we recall the three Baltic states in the Soviet Union, most countries of the West never recognised them as being legal parts of the Soviet Union, even though they were de facto under Soviet control. The West recognised them as sovereign states throughout that period, albeit under de facto Soviet occupation. In the same sense, I am fairly certain that Ukraine's recognition of Chechnya here is of the exact same nature, which means that Ukraine (if the bill gets signed and ratified by Zelenskyy) effectively views Chechnya as a sovereign state under Russian occupation. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

If Zelenskyy signs and ratifies the bill, then I 100% support adding Chechnya to this article. If Ukraine actually recognises Chechnya as a sovereign state, it fundamentally wouldn't matter whether Chechnya is de facto independent or not. According to the criteria of this article, the bare minimum requirement for inclusion is recognition by at least one UN member state. As I've said above, recognising a country as "temporarily occupied" is effectively the same as recognising it as a de jure sovereign state. There is no meaningful difference. We need to add Chechnya to this article based on the precedent of having previously added Kherson Oblast, Zaporizhzhia Oblast, the Donetsk PR, and the Luhansk PR. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, if we end up not adding Chechnya for some reason, then I must point out that there's a double standard between our perceptions of Russian authority versus Ukrainian authority. Many pro-Russian editors have been adamant about supporting Russia's official narratives regarding the DPR, LPR, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, simply because Russia's government has ratified certain "laws", even when these laws are not accepted by the rest of the international community. If Ukraine recognises Chechnya, it will be the first and only country to do so, but the effect will be exactly the same as Russia's own recognition of parts of Ukraine. If Russia's word is the word of God, then Ukraine's is equally potent. We cannot pick and choose whose words are holy. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You say, if Ukraine has "recognised Chechnya as an occupied territory", that is effectively the same thing as recognising Chechnya as a sovereign state, and base your entire comment on this assumption.

I do not accept this assumption. This would not be the only case where a country recognises an entity as an occupied territory but not as a sovereign state.

If we were to include Chechnya on this basis, we would be the only source on the entire planet to be making this claim. This is patently unacceptable.

And note that there was never consensus to include Zaporizhzhia or Kherson on this article, so they can't reasonably be held up as some kind of precedent. Also, if this is your argument, it is double standards on your part to propose to include Chechnya given that you opposed including Zaporizhzhia or Kherson. Kahastok talk 20:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

At this point, the article "List of sovereign states" still has Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast in the edit history. Until that edit history is wiped clean, it means that the status quo is that Wikipedia has recognised the eligibility of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia for that list. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This would not be the only case where a country recognises an entity as an occupied territory but not as a sovereign state. - Can you list any contemporary examples of this? The fact that Ukraine has recognised the "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" as opposed to "Chechnya" means that Ukraine has recognised a specific government as being the legitimate authority in Chechnya, as opposed to supporting a vague notion of separatism. It makes sense that Ukraine has recognised the Ichkeria republic because this organisation has been supporting Ukraine in the war; their soldiers are currently fighting alongside Ukrainians against the Russians. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I quote this sentence from the info-box of Wikipedia's article about the topic. --> Resolution on the recognition of the state sovereignty of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. What else do you think it means to recognise the "state sovereignty" of a specific entity that has previously existed as a de facto independent sovereign state? It would be the equivalent of Russia recognising the German Democratic Republic as a sovereign state in the year 2022. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Quoting Kyiv Independent... "The document notes that the Ukrainian Parliament takes into account the proclamation on Nov. 25, 1990, by the National Congress of the Chechen people of the declaration on the state sovereignty of Chechnya (Nokhchichoy), based on the exercise by the Chechen people of their right to self-determination, as enshrined in the UN Charter, as well as the proclamation of Ichkeria’s independence after the collapse of the USSR."

As far as I can tell, Ukraine has recognised a specific government as the legitimate authority in Chechnya, on the basis of that government having declared the independence of a sovereign state thirty years ago that actually possessed de facto independence for several years before being violently conquered by Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I will also point out that there is no contradiction in supporting the recognition of Chechnya but opposing the recognition of Russia's puppet states in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia never actually exercised any form of sovereignty, having been entirely under Russian control for their one day of nominal independence. On the other hand, Chechnya actually operated as an independent country for several years in the 1990s, very similar to Artsakh or Abkhazia. Furthermore, Chechnya was historically an independent country/society over 100 years ago before being conquered by Russia, and Chechen people have always remained a distinct ethnic nation throughout Russian rule. This is as opposed to the peoples of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, who are either ethnic Ukrainians or ethnic Russians for the most part and haven't historically constituted distinctive sovereign nations. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

So, what that wall of text tells me is that you have no understanding at all of how Wikipedia works. No, it is not normal for us to accept anything anyone ever edit warred into an article, even if it never had consensus as binding precedent on future decisions. Of course it isn't. Believe it or not, there are some Wikipedia editors who aren't complete idiots.

Or put another way, based on this argument, and given the fact that the Federal Republic of Rabbits is also in the edit history of that article, what other wildlife would you argue should be included? Squirrels? Hamsters, maybe? What about cows? Horses? After all, Wikipedia has clearly recognised the eligibility of rabbits for that list, so your argument would suggest that all those others should be included as well. How can they not be?

And I would note that the situation I describe is the precise status of Palestine, according to most Western governments. Most countries in Western Europe have recognised the Palestinian government as the specific legitimate government of Palestine, but do not recognise Palestine as an independent sovereign state. I've seen nothing that would indicate to me that Ukraine has not done precisely the same thing here. On the other hand I have seen several carefully worded sources that deliberately avoid making the claim the Ukraine has recognised Chechenya as a sovereign state. Kahastok talk 21:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You are actually wrong with regards to Palestine. Most Western governments have recognised the Palestine Liberation Organization as the legitimate authority of Palestinian people, and most countries also regard the Palestinian Territories as a distinctive territorial entity. However, most countries have not specifically recognised the State of Palestine as a sovereign state, with many countries regarding recognition of the State of Palestine as a bargaining chip in the conflict, which is why they haven't done so yet. It's the same sort of deal with Western Sahara, where most countries recognise Western Sahara as a distinctive territory, and the UN recognises the Polisario Front as the legitimate authority of the Sahrawi people, but most countries have refrained from recognising the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. In the situation of Chechnya, Ukraine has directly recognised the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria as a sovereign state, without any kind of middle-man like in the two examples I gave. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• I have reverted per Kahastok. This is indeed very interesting stuff but much stronger sourcing is needed for the specific claim of recognising an entity as a sovereign state. CMD (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Funny how DPR is "self-determination" but Chechnya is "interesting". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

No idea what this comment refers to, but DPR was left off this list for years. CMD (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

What? DPR and even LPR (Luhansk People's Republic) were both recognized and later annexed by Russia (Syria and North Korea for the former example) for within 7.5-8 months.

Like, you didn't look at the news at all about the Russo-Ukrainian War??? Chad The Goatman (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no deadline, we can wait until Ukraine clarifies its official position. Alaexis_¿question? 05:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

When Ukraine adds "Recognition of Chechnya" to its constitution (or something similar), I will restore Chechnya to the article. Indeed, it's my impression that if Ukraine hasn't officially recognised Chechnya yet, then it is at least planning to. There's not much for Ukraine to lose in recognising Chechnya since Russia is already currently in the process of brutally invading Ukraine and massacring innocent Ukrainian civilians. The only potential escalation from Russia's side would be nuclear strikes. See, with Taiwan and Somaliland, there is actually something to lose for both sides. But Ukraine has already lost so much, and Russia has already stolen the regions of Crimea, Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia from Ukraine. So, the war is already in an extreme state of affairs. There is no need to be "careful", as Kahastok has suggested. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a need to be as accurate as possible, and prevent a suggestion of being misleading to the reader. There is no need to jump on a wagon as if we are in a rush. Let's see how this fizzles out. Labrang (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

My comment about "a need to be careful" was in reference to Ukraine. Kahastok suggested that Ukraine has carefully worded their statements so as to not explicitly recognise the sovereignty of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, which is a notion that I disagree with. I believe that Ukraine has nothing to lose in recognising Chechnya. On the other hand, both Taiwan and Somaliland haven't recognised each other completely (but instead partially) because they both have something to lose by fully recognising one another. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

What that comment tells me is that you're coming at this from a position of one side in the the dispute. This comment also cements that view. But Wikipedia doesn't do that. Wikipedia is a disinterested observer. Whatever views we might have on the current situation in Ukraine are irrelevant to what we write here. What matters is what the sources say.

You reverted me claiming that The Kyiv Independent source pretty clearly states that Ukraine has recognised the sovereignty of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. But that source in fact says that the intention was to recognize the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria as temporarily occupied by Russia. That's not clearly the same thing and it is WP:OR for us to conclude that it is based on this sourcing. If you provide us with high quality independent sources demonstrating that the resolution intended to recognise Chechnya as sovereign, I'll take another look, as I'm sure will others. But what you've provided here isn't good enough. Kahastok talk 07:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Ukraine is recognising the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria as occupied territory is very significant, as opposed to merely recognising the "territory of Chechnya". The CR of Ichkeria is a specific political entity, rather than a mere geographic descriptor. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Do not include UN member states

I was looking for the definition of de facto state and found this: Perhaps the most straightforward way to describe them is to say that a de facto state is a territorial entity that has the broad qualities of a state and maintains some sort of at least quasi-independent existence, but is not a member of the United Nations (UN). Obviously, even the more expansive definition of a territory having broadly understood qualities of a state, but not being a member of the United Nations, throws up a broad range of different examples.... I believe that the сriteria for inclusion in this list should be changed that a polity must not be UN member state. Category:States with limited recognition and subcategories also do not include UN members. What do you think about my proposal?

References

Ibuman (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I actually agree with this. If we're going to call the articles "states with limited recognition", it's nonsensical to include countries like China, Cyprus, Armenia, South Korea and North Korea which enjoy universal recognition other than a few footnotes. And that's the only area where they should appear in the article, as footnotes. Otherwise rename the article. GeebaKhap (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

"other than a few footnotes" is a synonym for "limited", although obviously some limitations are more limiting than others. The scope change would remove items very relevant to this topic. Your list includes China for example, a country which actively pursues further recognition to this day. CMD (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The idea of splitting the list has come up before, that is in effect what the category folk have done using UN membership as a separator but then they do not identify anywhere UN member states with less than universal recognition. I suppose you could replace the word "limited" with "less than universal" or something of the sort but that wouldn't change the entries. Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ibuman and GeebaKhap. Either the terminology needs to be refined and/or the list itself edited in line with an update inclusion criteria. The fact that Armenia, for example, is on this list because only 1 country (Pakistan) refuses to recognize the former over a geopolitical dispute is WP:UNDUE compared to some of the other states on this list. It just doesn't make sense. Adjusting/updating the terminology/inclusion criteria has been a concern on this talk page for quite some time. Let's figure this out. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Gaining full recognition has been a major foreign policy priority for both the People's Republic of China (see Foreign relations of China, Dates of establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, and One China) and Israel (see Foreign relations of Israel, International recognition of Israel, and the Abraham Accords). The Chinese can easily ignore small countries such as Nauru and Saint Lucia but the Beijing government has put a great deal of effort into "winning over" various countries to remove recognition from Taiwan. Meanwhile, Israel wants to grow its own recognition, especially in the Arab world, to refute those who would deny its right to exist. If the powers-that-be in Beijing and Jerusalem are concerned with increasing their recognition beyond its current scope, then that shows a "real world" rationale for their inclusion in this list. If China, a country of over one billion people, with the world's largest military, the world's second largest economy, and a nuclear arsenal is included on this list, then why should Armenia or Cyprus get a pass? How is Pakistan's (population 242 million) "geopolitical dispute" with Armenia of lesser importance than Palau's (population 18,024) lack of ties with the People's Republic of China? How is Turkey's (population 84 million) non-recognition of Cyprus less significant than Brunei (population 460,345) or the Comoros (population 850,886) not recognizing Israel? Mtminchi08 (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why population statistics are suddenly being brought into this. Why should any UN member state (regardless of population) which maintains virtually near universal recognition be on this list? Seems a tad bit off in terms of WP:BALASP to me. Also, do you know what example I was referring too? Pakistan does not actually have a direct dispute with Armenia, they support another countries dispute with Armenia and therefore does not recognize the country. Which brings me to my original point- the inclusion criteria can be misleading. Archives908 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Because the scope of this list is states which have adjectives put in front of "universal recognition", including "near" or "virtual". CMD (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. However I can see the desire to have a shortlist of UN member states that do not have universal (total) recognition from UN member states. The question is whether that overview should be within the scope of this page or simply part of the list of UN-members. That is good enough and can be color marked if desired. The introduction pretty much lays out the landscape and focus for this page. There are some standards to measure international recognition but being a UN member (and recognized by them) is pretty much the default standard. Therefore, even in absence of full universal recognition, a UN member state can be considered a priori a recognized state by the international community - it also acts equal among others within the UN for example. I hope this makes sense. Labrang (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely and great recommendation. If your proposal is enacted, I think it'll make more sense to implement it here since this article's principle focus is about recognition of states, rather then membership within the UN. And we could finally put this long-standing issue to rest. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

FTR, your comment is original research. For us to suggest that all UN member states recognise UN member states really, even when they explicitly refuse to recognise them, would basically be us claiming to be able to override the sources and override the states' ability to determine who they recognise. So, no, we can't do that. Kahastok talk 19:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not what I meant to say or imply ("For us to suggest that all UN member states recognise UN member states really"). Fact is that UN members are treated equal amongst each other, regardless their factual recognition status among each other, within the UN. That is not original research but an objective fact. To clarify, I would suggest for ease and to entangle the discussions to use UN membership as leading distinction. Use this page for non-UN members (which typically suffer from "limited recognition" in line with the title) whilst addressing the "non-universal" recognition of UN-members in the UN members page. In that page either we can earmark them in the main table or create a separate section with the table of the non-universally recognized member states (taken from this page). Or have both. And in the current page we can redirect people to there for UN-members which lack recognition. Which is typically on a limited scale. The most not-universally recognized UN-member is Israel with 28 countries (then China with a dozen, then N-K (7), and other lacking 1). The most recognized non-UN member is Kosovo with 100 countries which is exceptional compared to the rest. The gap (handful missing recognition versus handful of recognitions) says everything you need to know. There is no original research involved, just guidelines and agreement. The point is that this page suffers from some sort of schizophrenia between "not universal" and "limited" recognition, which we try to reach consensus on. UN-membership is the dividing line between these two, which is logical as well think of it (after all, a country needs to be accepted among the ranks and thus needs to be recognized to a degree, which would typically be universal bare the individual naysayer). To try to cram everything into one page and then see how the title will cover the scope doesn't necessarily make things more clear. This page was originally set out to more or less collect de facto states (breakaways and such). It has grown beyond that by stretching it that even countries that miss one UN-recognition (0.5%) for bilateral political purposes had to be shoved in as "limited recognition". It doesn't work. Labrang (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I see you're proposing to remove Palestine entirely. That's not neutral.

The claim that UN members are all treated equal within the UN is patently wrong - unless you can show me what part of the UN charter gives Nauru a permanent veto on the security council? And yes, the degree of recognition matters for UN membership. There have been plenty of examples historically where states have high levels of recognition but have not been UN members because of the veto of one or more permanent members of the security council. Palestine is currently in this position, and Kosovo is pretty close.

If we were to merge the UN member states Member states of the United Nations with this, we would be creating a WP:COATRACK. That is not what that article is for. That is what this article is for - to deal with cases where a "state" is not recognised by other states. Now, if it is felt that the article title needs to change, that's one thing. I've no objection to changing the title if there's a better name available. But I see no reason why "limited recognition" cannot include all but one, or all but two. Kahastok talk 20:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"I see you're proposing to remove Palestine entirely. That's not neutral." Not quite. As it is not a UN-member state it would remain included in this page. It is very simple, very clear. And neutral, mind you. I am trying to constructively think here w/o deliberately singling anything out of anything. And since you are at slinging codes here (not my style): WP:AFG. Besides: COATRACK did not apply when this page was created (??). Sometimes it is good to touch base with the original scope (de facto states as I indicated above), how and why it started the way it did and how it grew the way it did. Instead of effectively pleading for a status quo - which leads to returning debates - with a possible minor adjustment to the title, check the deletion request comments to learn why there is a need to come to a more thoroughly laid out criterium for inclusion in this list (and possibly separation) instead of the notion "anything goes as long as it is not totally universally recognized". I am proposing a reasonable compromise (I think) that works for all situations as far as I can see. And it certainly is not COATRACK. In fact, the current list has become a coatrack ("grouped together to make it appear as if they were all examples of the same thing."), which is precisely why this debate keeps recurring. If one thing is clear: these entities are not all the same thing: part is UN-member and effectively participates as a fully sovereign country in the international community, part is not (including Palestine) with a few exceptions: Kosovo and Taiwan (ROC). Which precisely proves there are different cases with different ways it works out. Obscured by the coatrack. With the notion there is no perfect solution here. I am not a linguist, but to my understanding "limited" never means or implies "near universal" (as in 99.5% - which is the case for some of the cases we talk about). Labrang (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I do find it difficult to take this seriously when it's based on the claim that this debate keeps recurring. Where does it keep recurring? Is there some page somewhere that I haven't noticed where you have this discussion over and over again? Because it certainly doesn't keep recurring here.

In fact, I've just gone through the archives - got back to 2011 before I gave up. In the last eleven years, this point has been raised twice. Once in May 2022. And once yesterday. And that's it. You're telling me that two discussions in eleven years amounts to such an extreme controversy that it we must have a complete change in scope? Really? I don't accept that for a moment.

I am not persuaded that a need for a change in inclusion criteria is needed. I also find the idea that Member states of the United Nations, a page explicitly designed to deal with UN status, should be co-opted to discuss an entirely separate topic, to be clearly inappropriate. I see no reason why "limited recognition" cannot mean anything from zero to all but one. Kahastok talk 22:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Checked the frequency for you, and that's skipping a few borderline ones.

• 2006 "Unrecognized countries or secessionist teritories?"
• 2006 "Criteria for inclusion in this list" / "categories"
• 2007 "Partially unrecognised states"
• 2007 "suggestion"
• 2007 "Section merging / confusion"
• 2007 "Five tiny proposals for titles of sections and subsections"
• 2008 "partially recognized"?
• 2008 "Recognised/unrecoginsed by UN Security Council states"
• 2008 "Terms of reference"
• 2008 "Rename proposal: to List of partially recognised sovereignty"
• 2009 "Proposal for new classification of states"
• 2009 "Substantial recognition status"
• 2009 "De Facto States"
• 2009 "More states?"
• 2009 "UN member states, not recognized by at least one other state"
• 2011 "Governments with limited recognition versus states with limited recognition"
• 2012 "Recognized by at least one/ not recognized by at least one"
• 2012 "People here are thinking UN is some sort of important atlas?"
• 2014 "RFC: Propose use of terminologies "non-UN members""
• 2014 "Requested move 07 December 2014"
• 2018 "Can absence of any recognition be considered as "limited recognition"?"
• 2020 "Inclusion criteria - Academic sources"
• 2021 "RfC on the inclusion of DNR and LNR in the list of states with limited recognition"
• 2022 "Criteria of inclusion"
• 2022 "Let's not include states with close to universal recognition as having "limited recognition""

Labrang (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

So just to be clear. We had an RFC in 2021 on the topic of whether Donetsk and Luhansk met the current inclusion criteria. You claim this demonstrates some serious and ongoing problem with our decision to include China and North Korea and Israel? Bullshit. And most of the rest of this list is bullshit for similar reasons.

I find my point stands unchallenged. Kahastok talk 18:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Is it only your points which can remain "unchallenged", while the views of other editors are apparently "bullshit"? Not very conducive to the overall discussion. I agree with Labrang's previous statement that "limited" does not imply "near universal"- it is utterly misleading. Are there any other editors that care to chime into this debate? And perhaps provide more constructive feedback? Archives908 (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You are at liberty to propose an RM changing the name (when the current RM has been closed). Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

If there is some reason to change the title, then I don't object to changing it - though it seems to me that the world "limited" reasonably implies anything from zero to all but one. I would object to removing the UN member states here as I see no reason to do so - they are validly states with limited recognition. We should not presume to suggest that Pakistan's failure to recognise Armenia is somehow of a different nature than its failure to recognise Israel or its failure to recognise South Ossetia or Transnistria. Kahastok talk 19:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir

Azad Kashmir is listed as a partially recognized state, for example, in Sergey Markedonov's The Unrecognized States of Eurasia as a Phenomenon of the USSR’s Dissolution. Is Azad Kashmir in some meaningful way different from Northern Cyprus so that we include only the latter? Wikisaurus (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The difference is that Azad Kashmir doesn't claim statehood, nor is recognised as a state. It's unusual to see it mentioned as such in a source, although it does have a unique relationship to Pakistan. CMD (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Move Somaliland to "States recognised only by other non-UN member states"?

It seems as though Somaliland and the Republic of China (Taiwan) have official diplomatic relations and Taiwan recognises the independence of Somaliland. If this is true, Somaliland should be moved to the "States recognised only by other non-UN member states" section, not its current section. If this isn't correct, disregard. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

To my understanding following reading a series of recent articles, both sides have agreed to interaction and relations, establishing diplomatic "representations" (see here and here, both official TW pages). However, Taiwan stopped short of formally recognizing Somaliland, yet. Read for example this extensive article of last June, this at the moment of establishing the relations (2020), and this article of last February Labrang (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Labrang Then, how about [1]? This source was cited as "iron evidence" (lit. from "鐵證") by zhwiki. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

that article is about Fiji, right? The question here is about Somaliland - Taiwan relations. Somaliland is not mentioned at all in the article you gave. I am confused. Labrang (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 31 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

---

List of states with limited recognition → List of de facto states – The most commonly recognizable name. Plain google search, goolge scolar and ngram, all of them are using the term 'de facto state' much more often than the current descriptive title. Ibuman (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. First because this is incompatible with the AFD also going on and we should only have one process at a time. Second, because this is inappropriate and non-neutral for the scope as it implies that these are not also de jure states. Third, one might reasonably argue that some of the entities listed exist de jure only and do not exist de facto. Kahastok talk 22:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, a latin term that is less accessible to your regular English-speaker. Further, clearly misunderstands this article's topic. CMD (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, as such a descriptor would cover all universally-recognized states as well. WMSR (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, the current title is perfectly acceptable as a descriptive title, as explained at WP:NDESC. --Jayron32 13:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Donetsk & Luhansk People's Republics?

As a result of Russia signing off on their annexation, the relevant Wikipedia articles now refer to these proto-states in the past tense as they're now claimed to be part of Russia. Should they be removed from this list as they no longer exist? I've WP:BOLDly done this already, but I thought I'd bring it to talk right away just in case there are any objections.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps I should've checked the page history before doing anything. I see User:Kahastok and User:Cordyceps-Zombie had the same idea as me, while User:XavierGreen reverted both of them. I'd say that's indicative of some consensus for the immediate removal of Donetsk and Luhansk, but I invite all of these involved editors to share their thoughts here nonetheless.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Editors keep changing is to was and back again lol. The history here shows back and forth as well based on the Duma not having ratified it yet. Probably they will shortly then they can be removed without argument but I'm not joining in an edit war over it. Selfstudier (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk:List of sovereign states#Donetsk and Luhansk. CMD (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Support They are no longer de facto states. Luhansk Oblast is de jure Ukrainian territory claimed and fully occupied by Russia. Donetsk Oblast is de jure Ukrainian territory claimed and partially occupied by Russia. 2001:8003:9007:8201:84C4:1957:3106:2BB9 (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Luhansk oblast is not fully occupied. Ukrainian forces liberated Bilohorivka over a week ago, and hold several other settlements in two or three salients. —Michael Z. 03:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't make a significant difference though. 2001:8003:9007:8201:84C4:1957:3106:2BB9 (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, you are misusing the term de facto, which just means “in fact.” Russian republics de facto control Ukrainian territory. But they are not “de facto states.” They are fake states. De faketo.  —Michael Z. 03:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Not really, de facto states do not require international recognition. If they function like states, they are states. Now Russia has annexed them, so they are no longer de facto states. 2001:8003:9007:8201:84C4:1957:3106:2BB9 (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Wait  Russia has not signed off. Putin signed treaties, but it won’t go into effect until after ratification.

 —Michael Z. 03:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, we all know that these treaties will get ratified. 2001:8003:9007:8201:84C4:1957:3106:2BB9 (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course that was true, and now it’s ratified. The effective date is last Friday, upon signing of the treaties. So Putin has to approve it. And it has to enter the Russian constitution. I don’t care if they’re not listed here because they aren’t real states, and their recognition by a Russian client state and a trade dependent, is purely transactional. Still, they remain whatever they were until the process is finished. See WP:CRYSTAL. —Michael Z. 22:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

What sources are you basing this on? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

+1 Illegal or not, Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics are nowadays having same legal status within Russia as Crimea, so both are no longer independent countries but rather two Russo federal entities. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support According to TASS, reliable for this I think, the Duma passed and the upper house as well. Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk & Luhansk were recognized as independent by Russia, Syria and DPRKorea. Only Russia and DPRK recognize the annexation, meaning that legally, Syria still recognizes the two republics as independent of both Russia and Ukraine, which qualifies both parastates for inclusion on the list of states with partial recognition. Donutcity (talk)

so now we get a category "states that have been annexed but which annexation hasn't been recognized by countries that recognized the state". This gets complicated. ;-) Basically the self-declared state has ceased to exist by voluntarily being absorbed in a recognized state (even though the annexation may not be universally recognized, the self declared state simply has ceased to exist, practically and effectively) it makes things overly complicated and not easy to understand if we maintain records of such situations in which a recognizing state hasn't formally recognized the annexation. This distinction can be easily dealt with at the page of the former (de facto) state. Labrang (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we can move them to List of historical unrecognized states and dependencies. Alaexis_¿question? 18:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Question fellas, ive read theres a time frame lasting up until 2026 for the republics to become fully integrated into the Russian Federation Does that mean they still exist as "states" until that time comes? Joaco4637 (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Not according to any sources I've seen. Integration into administrative structures is a different question to the question of sovereign recognition. CMD (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

“is generally recognized”

General recognition is the definition of the composition of states. We use X is generally recognised as part of the sovereign territory of Y four times on the page, but this is both-sidesism, humouring a non-standard and illegal view, creating a false balance.

Let’s just state plainly that X is in the territory of Y.  —Michael Z. 14:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The existence of this page somewhat undermines the idea that there is some plain inviolable truth. CMD (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not fond of the phrase "generally recognized"? More than 75% of UN member states? 99%? Presumably not "universally recognized" It's arbitrary but I guess OK if sources use it. Do they, though? Selfstudier (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

New article inbound

List of de facto autonomous states and areas Hmm. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Map out of date? Somaliland and Taiwan?

i think Somaliland was recently recognized by Taiwan? but i don't have time to check this now and i definitely don't have time to update the map. Irtapil (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

There has been no firm statement of recognition by either party. Taiwan opened a Representative Office in Somaliland, not an embassy. CMD (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis Then enwiki and zhwiki are really having benefit contras on Somaliland-Taiwan relations, as zhwiki said Taiwan recognizated Somaliland. (see also zh:Talk:有限承认国家列表#索马里兰共和国) Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

See the thread above. Labrang (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

zhwiki is known for having a looser relationship with realist than enwiki. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

List article not an article about states with limited recognition

@Kahastok: this is a list article, that means a list not a collection of lists. If you want to create three pages for three lists you can, but this page needs to just be one list. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline of any kind saying that a list article is not allowed to split its contents into smaller chunks where such presentation is of benefit to the reader, or necessary to meet core policy requirements. Many of our lists do this.

On the other hand, the sources are clear that there is an enormous difference in the real-world status of Armenia, Cyprus and Israel on one hand and that of Transnistria, Northern Cyprus and Somaliland on the other. WP:NPOV absolutely requires that we acknowledge that in a list such as this one. The proposal is that we remove that acknowledgement. Kahastok talk 20:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Its not a list split into three parts its three separate lists. NPOV requires that we have a list of states with limited recognition, which these all are. Absolutely no reason they can't all be on the same list. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Editor Kahastok is correct. Jeff in CA (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

About what? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It appears you have no actual argument to make here at all.

Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia policy does require that we give appropriate WP:WEIGHT to different points of view. When international opinion broadly accepts Armenia and rejects Transnistria, this is something we have reflect in our article. And it is a distinction that is drawn by the reliable sources - you'll struggle to find many that give equal validity to Israel, South Korea, Transnistria and Somaliland, as per your proposal for this article.

And the fact remains that there is nothing in any policy or guidelines that prevents us from organising the list in this way - or even that suggests that it might not be a good idea. Kahastok talk 18:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And we do that in the article sovereign state (primarily in the recognition section), this page needs to be a list of states with limited recognition. If in addition to a list of states with limited recognition you believe that the separate lists "List of UN member states not recognised by at least one UN member state," "List of UN observer states not recognised by at least one UN member state," "List of States recognised by at least one UN member state," and "List of States recognised only by other non-UN member states" are all notable you can create those lists on the appropriate pages but thats not what this page is for. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You keep saying it needs to be, and yet you are only offering personal opinion. And in fact your position is contradicted by the fact that many of our featured lists contain multiple sections with lists in each. For example: List of freshwater islands in Scotland, List of national lakeshores and seashores of the United States, National Trails System. Youre just making things up about what this list supposedly "needs to be". There are distinctions between states based on status in the UN, and there is no reason why this list cannot, like many featured lists, contain multiple lists for each distinct category. nableezy - 19:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

None of the given pages break up the list as deeply as this one does. List of freshwater islands in Scotland appears to be getting into OR territory which I'm sure you don't mean to endorse (it would not pass FA today). List of national lakeshores and seashores of the United States makes complete sense to do as two different lists, its not broken into five lists for arbitrary reasons. Also note that National Trails System is not a list article. The sources don't make a distinction between states based on status in the UN when it comes to whether they have limited recognition or not, if they did it would be reasonable for us to do so but they do not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

National Trails System is not only a list, it is a featured list. If youd like to nominate any of them for demotion then feel free. But fine, lets go through some more. List of people with brain tumors likewise breaks down the list by some other attribute. So does WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, and List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement, and List of federal judges appointed by George Washington, and List of colleges and universities in Wisconsin, and List of universities in Bangladesh. As far as the sources dont make these distinctions, what? Says who? Thats just an unsourced assertion. nableezy - 19:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

If you have any sources which break the class down into those five categories please present them. Thanks for pointing out that it is somehow a featured list despite not being a list article. Clearly not one of our Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (it might have been at one point but its a full article now). Will likely challenge. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

here, or here. nableezy - 19:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The first is an article about recognition by the UN which is not what this page is about... This page is about the recognition of states by other states. The second is from a non-notable Forbes contributor and as such is not a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The first also breaks down what type of status each has, and notability has nothing to do with reliability. See for example here for her other work or here for an example for her work being cited by other reliable sources. nableezy - 19:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Forbes.com contributors Forbes contributors are generally unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Kindly see it yourself, it is treated as SPS, and given the contributor's other work that seems to meet the bar. nableezy - 20:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The bar is subject matter expert, their expertise appears to be in data science not international relations. They also don't do what you say they do, nowhere in there do they break it into the five categories we use here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Well thats all sorts of special, but sure do what you feel like. But if I see more reverting I am going to request sanctions, and keep in mind the Palestine related bit is subject to ARBPIA and the 1RR. nableezy - 23:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The Arab–Israeli conflict part has not been touched. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And also, there seems to be a very solid consensus against your position here. Feel free to seek wider input if you like, but at the moment continued edit-warring in the article may well be reported for disruptive editing as there is indeed a clear consensus here on the talk page against your view. Unsourced and not based on policy as it is. nableezy - 20:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You can't make a "very solid consensus" to violate WP:V, the requirement to provide an inline source must still be met. You aren't the person who restored the text so you are not required to provide an inline citation which supports the text. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

But we can have a consensus that this does not violate WP:V. Again, feel free to seek wider input, and anyway I provided sources that do exactly what you asked for. nableezy - 20:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

If its been challenged and does not have an inline citation it violates WP:V (that is of course a separate issue from how the list is structured). None of the sources you provided did what I asked for, neither of them used the five category system that has been invented for this page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally I don't see problems with the current split into sub-lists which gives the reader some structure. At the same time I think that it's worth looking at the ways RS are dealing with this issue. Last time I looked at it when the inclusion of DNR and LNR was discussed (that problem was resolved by recent events) and we can look at it again.

Finally, listing every country that is not recognised by at least one UN member in the same list is not some kind of neutral default position. Horse Eye's Back, if this is what you propose, you should also provide sources which consider all these countries without grouping them in any way

. Alaexis_¿question? 21:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't propose any actual changes to the list, just combining the sub-lists into one list (perhaps with a "UN Member" Y/N category if thats information that people want to retain). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And several people are opposed to that, for the obvious reason that states with no status at the UN and with minimal recognition, eg Taiwan, should not be treated the same as states that are members of the UN (eg Israel, Cyprus, China) or non-member observer states (eg Palestine). Because that is what is OR, attempting to claim all these things are the same when they very obviously are not. I wont speculate as to why somebody wants to combine the lists, making it so Taiwan and other states that are have no status at the UN and are recognized by a handful of countries, should be treated the same as states with 100+ other states recognizing them. But I, and now three others, are opposed to that. nableezy - 23:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Its supposed to be a list of states with limited recognition, thats what it should be. They are all the same in that they're all states with limited recognition. What is your opinion about the non-list content? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

But they are not all the same. List articles also include prose. Again, see the featured lists linked above. Id probably remove much of the excluded entries part though. Definitely the uncontacted tribes and the SMOM. nableezy - 21:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

While I insist that the split is necessary, I can accept that the precise categorisation was overly narrow. I have proposed that we do the same as we do the same as on List of sovereign states, i.e. split between those states with UN status and those without. This was the outcome of a very (very) long discussion a few years ago, that has been stable ever since, and I would suggest that it resolves any potential questions of arbitrariness without compromising on the basic requirement for WP:NPOV. Kahastok talk 17:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Wait, why is this a separate list? This is a list of sovereign states, just ones with limited recognition. The two lists appear to overlap entirely in terms of content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

If you wish to propose that the articles be merged, that's a separate discussion. Kahastok talk 17:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

In terms of status, Palestine has more similarities to the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic than to Israel. Nagsb (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Except that it's a General Assembly observer state, whereas the SADR is not. And, the point of distinction needs to be something other than individual Wikipedians' POVs on the entities concerned. Note that if the Vatican were to lose recognition from some state, it would be in the same position as Palestine. Kahastok talk 17:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not dispute the fact that Palestine is a General Assembly observer state. But it's not a UN member, right? I agree with you that the point of distinction needs to be something other than individual Wikipedians' POVs on the entities concerned. The requirement for recognition in our criteria is that it must come from at least one UN member state, not from at least one UN member state or GA observer state. Nagsb (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Its also a full member of a number of UN bodies, such as UNESCO. nableezy - 16:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Which is a right of observer states. Its not a UN Member. On a side note should we include Vatican City on the list? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Im just saying it is not closer to Western Sahara than it is to Israel. As far as the Vatican, yes, given the non-recognition by China and North Korea. nableezy - 16:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, to me that is a hyperbolic statement. It does make sense to make the split be UN members and everyone else if there's going to be a split though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Not the case at List of sovereign states so why do it here? Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe List of sovereign states should be changed? Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. And as I wrote higher our criteria is that a recognition must come from at least one UN member state, not from observer state. Nagsb (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not using WP as a source. I am asking a question, there was a lengthy discussion over this there so its a matter of pre-existing consensus not using WP as a source. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Consensus there is not consensus here, a consensus on that talk page only applies to that page. For a consensus to apply across multiple pages it has to be at a centralized noticeboard or talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

That definition is itself an arbitrary decision. It could just as well be list of states not recognized by at least one FIFA member. nableezy - 17:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy I support the addition of Vatican to this list if you have sources for the non-recognition by China and North Korea. Please proceed with adding it if you want. Nagsb (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Circular sourcing

Horse Eye's Back appears to insist that, if we are to give examples of kinds of entities that are not in this list, we have to find an external source telling us which entities are not in this list. We have to find sources, that are literally on the topic of this Wikipedia article, telling us what the list includes and what it doesn't include.

It is entirely normal for lists to restrict their contents where needed so as not to include Literally Everything. Declaring that we have to find external sources about this list in order to do that is absurd. Kahastok talk 20:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, which we do in the List criteria section. Other lists don't have an excluded section at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for list articles are determined by Wikipedia list creators and editors themselves. It is entirely normal. Jeff in CA (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

We aren't talking about the criteria section. No other page on wikipedia I am aware of does this, if you think its normal then you wouldn't mind linking a few examples? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The excluded entities are an essential explanatory supplement to the list criteria, that clears up common questions and disputes over what does and what does not meet the criteria. It's this section that makes it clear that, if a person just found a reliable source claiming their favourite micronation meets the declarative theory, that doesn't mean that we include it. It's this part of the criteria that made it clear that we shouldn't be including Kherson and Zaporizhzia last year, even though they briefly could be argued to formally meet the criteria. It's this part of the criteria that make it clear that we should not be going on about cases where states have not technically exchanged the paperwork that creates formal recognition because they haven't got around to it. And so on.

Your proposal removed all of these explanations and hence failed to explain to the reader why the particular entities included are included and why other ostensibly similar entities are not included. The article was made substantially worse as a result. Ironically, the one part you decided to keep was the long and tangential discussion on the SMOM, which I have no objection to trimming. Kahastok talk 18:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thats what talk page FAQs are for, we don't use the article itself to do that. You don't need to say what is excluded, its obvious because everything which isn't on the list has been excluded... Thats how exhaustive lists work. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It's useful to include this stuff on the page, so that people looking for entities know why they can't find them. Resolves lots of problems for everyone. I've no objection to including a link to the list of excluded entities in the inclusion criteria, but removing it is not so much asking for trouble, but begging for POV pushers to do their worst. Kahastok talk 17:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It may be useful but its not encyclopedic. If we encounter disruption we can just protect the page, that is the normal response. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

No, clear marking what's part of it and what's not is the normal way to go, and not just sit back and just be passively reactive until someone wastes their time by adding information that should be entered elsewhere, which effort could have been spend more effectively and efficiently if inclusion (or exclusion) criteria were present. It's better for everyone, except for PIC pushers who lure for moments that their additions are not being watched and have no bars. Believe me, this is the way I have dealt with fantasy editing in a list similarly as this in another language. Labrang (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason why the excluded entities section is so large is people would keep adding entries that made no sense (even the Basque Country made it into the list once IIRC). Setting up the criteria took many years of deliberation, and once it was decided to include them as part of the article text the page finally became somewhat stable. Another recurring phenomenon was that different people would keep asking on the talk page for the inclusion of certain entries, forcing regular editors to explain again and again why the list should not include them. The current setup did wonders to minimize this happening. Sorry to be so blunt, but if you really care about the page the best thing you can do is not trying to "fix" this (clearly non-) issue ever again. Ladril (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Chechnya Recognised as Sovereign

Chechnya is Recognised by Ukraine as Sovereign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_recognition_of_the_Chechen_Republic_of_Ichkeria Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

That article says there was a draft bill not recognition. If should be changed if wrong. DrKay (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

it passed on 14 July 2022 as it says on the page On November 9 2022, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine also registered a draft resolution on the recognition of state sovereignty and independence of Tatarstan. this is completely different https://english.nv.ua/nation/ukraine-recognizes-chechen-republic-of-ichkeria-ukraine-news-50277623.html https://kyivindependent.com/ukraines-parliament-recognizes-chechen-republic-of-ichkeria-as-temporarily-occupied-by-russia/ https://warsawinstitute.org/ukrainian-lawmakers-recognize-independence-of-chechen-republic-of-ichkeria/ https://www.kyivpost.com/post/5063 https://oc-media.org/ukrainian-parliament-recognises-independence-of-chechnya/ 84.68.160.14 (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

That is correct Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Chechnia was also de-facto recognized as sovereign and independent by the RF when Yeltsin signed the 1997 Russia–Chechnya Peace Treaty.  —Michael Z. 21:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

yeah, but i'm saying its currently recognised as independent by one nation, and i'm saying just because it doesn't occupy any territory it shouldn't be excluded from the list as the sovereign military order of malta has recognition and is listed Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not formally recognized. It's just a proposal which hasn't been approved by the president. Ladril (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

https://english.nv.ua/nation/ukraine-recognizes-chechen-republic-of-ichkeria-ukraine-news-50277623.html https://kyivindependent.com/ukraines-parliament-recognizes-chechen-republic-of-ichkeria-as-temporarily-occupied-by-russia/ https://warsawinstitute.org/ukrainian-lawmakers-recognize-independence-of-chechen-republic-of-ichkeria/ https://www.kyivpost.com/post/5063 https://oc-media.org/ukrainian-parliament-recognises-independence-of-chechnya/

the sources above say otherwise plus this [2]https://itd.rada.gov.ua/billInfo/Bills/Card/40676 from the ukrainian government Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Those sources are all saying the same thing: that the Ukrainian parliament passed a resolution asking the president to recognize Chechnya as a state. However, since foreign affairs are a privilege of the executive branch, this resolution does not amount to diplomatic recognition unless the Ukrainian president ratifies it. Ladril (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I can assure you you've misread, its tatarstan which theres a resolution. Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a separate resolution. CMD (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Mutuality of non-recognition

Eg., the non-recognition of Armenia by Pakistan means a non-recognition of Pakistan by Armenia as well. So why is Armenia listed in the article while Pakistan not? Another example of the Wiki servicing the propaganda of specific governments against other government? 185.215.54.38 (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this concept? CMD (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Still no source for the claim the USA doesn't recognise the DPRK

The fact that this is still up as a completely unsourced claim is kinda ridiculous. No formal diplomatic relations =/= no recognition. Otherwise the USA also doesn't recognise Iran, Bhutan and didn't recognise Cuba until 2015, which is obvious malarkey. It either needs some proper sources or to get deleted. I'd do it myself but it's edit protected. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, USA by de jure doesn't recognize the Islamic Republic of Iran, what they did recognize is only Pahlavi Dynasty (just try to obtain an IR. Iran passport and try to visit an US embassy/consulate general to gain US visa, unless you're indeed not sanctioned by USDOS, most likely, you could be arrested by their diplomats). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

If you're so confident in that statement, add it to the list and provide sources. No diplomatic relations =/= no recognition. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't seem to make sense since North Korea is a member of the United Nations, and France and the US supported its membership, as permanent members of the Security Council, which voted unanimously to admit North Korea. DrKay (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that Botswana, Israel, eSwatini and the Vatican were removed (correctly, I would say) for not having sources says it all really. Estonia still has no sources, and the sources for the USA don't seem investigable. I 100% think that the USA and Estonia should be removed as well. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Estonia does have a source currently in the article. Whether it is sufficient sourcing is a question worth considering (as it is for the other sources), but it does have a source. CMD (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The claim that the United States does not recognize North Korea is erroneous. Some editors do not understand that states still recognize each other as such, even if they do not have formal diplomatic relations. The United States clearly recognizes North Korea as a state, and there are ample sources to verify this. For example, the United States government is the depository for several multilateral treaties, including the Antarctic Treaty, and it has recognized and accepted North Korea's instrument of accession (see here). Or see this statement by the G7 that the United States joined which states "North Korea cannot and will never have the status of a nuclear-weapon State" (source). The United States also consented to the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 702, which admitted North Korea as a member of the United Nations. I will make the same argument about other states listed as not recognizing North Korea, such as France. It agreed to the adoption of Resolution 702, is part of the G7, and is the depository of multilateral treaties to which North Korea is a party (see Svalbard Treaty). – Zntrip 05:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Russia de-recognized Lithuania?

No idea whether Novaya Gazeta is reliable or not, there are some hints on Russian Duma's suggestion on revoking recognition of Lithuania. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is. The proposal was done by one Duma member, and it was generally reported in Russian media, from Lenta to Ria Novosti (see here. But as it goes with these balloons... nothing came of it. Just another Russian fart of denying sovereignty of its former subjects. Labrang (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2023

Ukraine no longer recognizes North Korea. It should be mentioned next to France, South Korea and America. Parham wiki (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Breaking of diplomatic relations is not the same as refusing recognition. DrKay (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I will also add that the recognition of a state is irrevocable (unless the state in question ceases to exist). M.Bitton (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton Really irrevocable? See the below section on a recent matter. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

This is absolutely the right way to look at it. Recognition and relations are two different things. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gnerkistanislaviyort Then how do you explain #Russia de-recognized Lithuania? below?! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities and Rojava as other entities

While they aren't claiming to be a state because anarchists don't support the state, they control territory and have had diplomatic relations with mexico

With Rojava I believe they have de facto recognition of the Syrian government, France, Sweden, Germany, USA and Switzerland via diplomatic relations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Rojava 79.77.67.121 (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's important to note the difference between de jure recognition and de facto recognition, and that this page really should be just for the former, otherwise it opens up a whole can of worms that frankly will never be agreed upon. What is "de jure" recognition? What makes it different from just negotiating with them? Does Cyprus de facto recognise the North because they negotiate? For the sake of logical consistency, this should really only be de jure recognition.

Also, even Rojava does not claim to be independent. They claim to be an autonomous part of Syria. If the region does not even say it is independent, there is no way that it could ever be de jure recognised as such. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

we included somaliland Gorgonopsi (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

South Yemen

South Yemen does claim independence Gorgonopsi (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Those sources don't say South Yemen claims independence, just that an alternative government had been set up. Note how the first two sources refer to secession as a "prospect". CMD (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

They act as a seperate country they don't claim the entirety of yemen. Gorgonopsi (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Common name use

@JSwift49: it isn't about using the short version, its about using the common version. In Palestines case the page actually is entitled State of Palestine. We don't second guess the consensus on page name, we just use it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Well if you look at every table/graph on Wikipedia then it's just 'Palestine'. The article also starts with 'Palestine, officially the State of Palestine' much like 'Taiwan, officially the Republic of China'. JSwift49 19:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

A quick search says its mixed, but a lot of those links do appear to be pointing to the disambiguation Palestine when they actually mean to point to State of Palestine. The point of a common name is to use the same name across wikipedia, thats the constancy we value not making a table/graph internally consistent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand that but from my POV 'common name' means most commonly used short name and not always the actual title of the article. Because by your rules, if Georgia was on this list, we'd have to include them as Georgia (country), but no one does that. Palestine seems the same case, no? since it's only called State of Palestine because of the disambiguation JSwift49 19:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

In wiki parlance it means the name of the page. I don't have a problem with using just Palestine and Artsakh in order to make the list visually cleaner. Better to have two redirect links than two dozen. For Sovereign Military Order of Malta its long but its actually the short version, long name is "Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

"State of Palestine" isn't the page title due to common name, it's the page title due to disambiguation (of the common name). Republic of Ireland is similar, Georgia (country) is the least subtle. I agree that with the principle of using the article title to avoid rehashing the same dispute on every page, but that does not apply to disambiguated titles (unless of course the disambiguation is specifically needed in that context). CMD (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Its the page title due to consensus, not due to the existence of the disambiguation page per say... Theres no reason the disambiguation page has to be at Palestine and not Palestine (disambiguation). (edit: I was mistaken, there is not a disambiguation page at Ireland there is a page for the island as a geographic feature) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2023

X= As it is. Y= Cook Islands and Nuie removed as they are territories of New Zealand like Puerto Rico is to the USA, Bermuda is to the UK and Greenland is to Denmark. Also Malta must be removed as that one is historical and no longer exists. 92.24.230.78 (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Do we have Puerto Rico or Greenland on here? Because they are fundamentally the same to Nuie and Cook.92.24.230.78 (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

They're all different situations. CMD (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Relevant Court Cases on Northern Cyprus

International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence, and the recognition of a country is a political issue.

International Courts

• On 22 July 2010, The International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated in its advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence in 2010 that "the Security Council in an exceptional character attached illegality to the DOI of TRNC because it was, or would have been connected with the unlawful use of force" and "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence".

The ICJ's ruling was expected to bolster demands for recognition by Northern Cyprus. The decision of the ICJ has also been regarded as opening more potential options for the TRNC to gain international legitimacy.

• On 2 July 2013, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided that "...notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus the adoption by the authorities of the "TRNC" of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention".

• On 2 September 2015, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided that "...the court system set up in the "TRNC" was to be considered to have been "established by law" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which it operated, and it has not accepted the allegation that the "TRNC" courts as a whole lacked independence and/or impartiality".

Courts of Countries

• On 9 October 2014, the Federal Court of the United States (USA) stated that "the TRNC purportedly operates as a democratic republic with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary".

• On 3 February 2017, The United Kingdom's High Court stated "There was no duty in the United Kingdom law upon the Government to refrain from recognizing Northern Cyprus. The United Nations itself works with Northern Cyprus law enforcement agencies and facilitates co-operation between the two parts of the island". and revealed that the co-operation between the United Kingdom police and law agencies in Northern Cyprus is legal.
  Nepal2000 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  So far, what are you asking for? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Artsakh after 2020

Is there any source confirming whether Artsakh satisfies the declarative theory of statehood after the 2020 war? The only source I have found in the article is [3], which does not assert this. Kpratter (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Artsakh still exists (functioning government, permanent population, etc...), albeit with reduced territory following the war. Archives908 (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Archives908 I do not dispute the existence of Artsakh, but I'm not certain whether it still claims itself to be independent from Azerbaijan. As far as I understand, they have come to terms with being part of Azerbaijan but now seek cultural and territorial autonomy. Kpratter (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. It's the ruling majority within the government of Armenia which has come to terms with Artsakh being part of Azerbaijan. Not the Artsakh government. The two are not the same, with the Artsakh government still advocating for self-determination. Really no change pre-2020, minus less territory under their jurisdiction. Archives908 (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

with the Artsakh government still advocating for self-determination source? Beshogur (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

And after today (20 September 2023)? Artsakh still controls anything?--MiguelMadeira (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Events (attacks, negotiations/discussions, ceasefires) are on-going, it's impossible to pre-determine what exactly will be the outcome of this escalation. Best to avoid all WP:CRYSTALBALL hypotheses and wait until things become clear. Archives908 (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Think-fully, we can remove that entry by 1 Jan 2024, as that day will be the de jure dissolution day of Ro. Artsakh, right? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That depends on what actually happens, but as it stands right now: yes. Labrang (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The edits of @Beshogur yesterday are premature and should be reverted. I am on phone now so a revert of two edits in one go is a bit complicated. Labrang (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing crystall ball here. Azerbaijan captured its capital, and there is no news since its announcement of its dissolution. It's dissolved point. And that's how various news agencies reporting it as[4] "former separatist regions", etc. You won't gain anything with revert either. See Afghanistan Islamic Republic example. Beshogur (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Reuters: former breakaway region of Karabakh

Sky news: former breakaway region

AP: former breakaway region’s capital Beshogur (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Gagauzia

According to Wikimedia Commons, Gagauzia is also a state with limited recognition.

Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Countries_of_Europe 58.160.77.124 (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The list in that article includes territories with special status in addition to states with limited recognition. Gagauzia is one of the former. Alaexis_¿question? 14:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Wa State

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wa_State

Wa State controls territory, it has relations with china, iirc, while it doesn't see itself as an independent state, since the Myanmar civil war, it acts as such. 79.77.67.121 (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

If even the state itself doesn't claim to be independent, it absolutely should not seen as something to add to the list. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It is still De-Facto independent, Artsakh didn't itself claim to be independent but a part of armenia for alot of the time. but it was included. this is de-facto recognised by the People's Republic of China 77.44.68.140 (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

We should also add Chinland Gorgonopsi (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

References