Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

FARC in Columbia

Unrecognized states with partial control over their territory.

Wouldn't this definition apply to the teritory control by the FARC in Columbia? They have their own government, and control over massive parts of Columbia. Should they be reconized as a "Unrecognized state with partial control over it's territory" ? Darkfalkon 20:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know too much about the FARC, but the difference could be that they don't claim to be an independent state. Of course, if they claim to be the only true government of Columbia, then their case would be similar to the ROC, and they ought to be listed.sephia karta 10:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

True, nothing says that they are wanting to divide the nation & having it's own. All FARC wants to do is overthrown the present government. That-Vela-Fella 11:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

ROC

It has been edited in the article that Republic of China would be in de facto control over the territory it says it represents. Since ROC claims, and is treated as such also by the countries that recognize it, to be the sole representative of China, that would mean it would be in control of all China. As that is not the case, stating ROC to be in de facto control over its territory is not correct. --Drieakko 12:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just state in control of what it actually has in possession presently rather than it's claim. That-Vela-Fella 22:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that is similar to Syria's past claims on Hatay. 15:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Denizz (talk • contribs).

Negros

The Negros Republic link should go to Negros Revolution. Also, the dates on both articles don't match. --84.20.17.84 08:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually got it fixed to show the article to now says in relation to, but not only, the revolution itself. Also fixed the date it had listed. That-Vela-Fella 12:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Korea's

The Korean war hasn't ended yet. Do we have anything arising from this that we should be mentioning on the main page, what do you think? Deniz^T_C 15:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In what way is it related to this article? That-Vela-Fella 12:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I was just asking whether someone knows about it. They are still at war, so no finalizing treaty has been signed yet, and there is a military demarcation line instead of a border. We have a special situation there. Also North Korea claims the whole territory. I guess I'll just add Division of Korea to See also's. One question might be should we add them to former partially recognized ones for the period between 1953 and 1971. Deniz^T_C 21:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure many know about it, but that link doesn't say anything or sourced as to them having been recognized or not during that time period. (It does though touch on that the South also claims the whole territory.) Just putting that link to the See also section without prior mention of it makes it pointless for now. That-Vela-Fella 11:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I see now that I might have been misunderstood above. What I was talking about was, whether someone among us, the contributors to this article, knows anything related to recognition arising from the complex situation of Koreas, eg. the one I mentioned: whether they were fully recognized between 1953 and 1971. I think having them under the See also section should be fine (though it would be better if they were 'hinted' in the text). See also's don't repeat the wikilinks. Deniz^T_C 22:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical section

Shouldn't this be in a different article? Æetlr Creejl 23:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. One concern might be whether it will be notable enough to have its own article. I think it is notable enough. Deniz^T_C 01:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

List of past unrecognized countries? --Drieakko 07:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion was about 'historical' not 'partially'. Anyway, as some editors suggested, we do have that 'title' problem, unrecognized vs partially recognized. The latter one would make us exclude likes of Karabakh. One problem with adding the historical ones is incompleteness. We should be able to make this list complete. I also don't see much point adding them here. We can create a new list, or have them listed in a category. Deniz^T_C 08:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion for the name of the new article was for the PAST, not PARTIALLY unrecognized countries :) --Drieakko 09:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

lol losing sleep for wiki is not a good thing I guess Deniz^T_C 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll create that and move the stuff right now. If anyone has any objections, leave a note on my talk page. Æetlr Creejl 04:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bhutan

Why is Bhutan in this list? Æetlr Creejl 04:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably it should not be on the list. Lack of diplomatic relations does not imply non-recognition (too many negatives). Is there a 'country' that hasn't recognized Bhutan yet? Deniz^T_C 04:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Same goes for the Vatican, see above. That-Vela-Fella 11:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Vatican specially non-recognized by P R China? Deniz^T_C 22:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Them & 23 other countries, due to the "other" China. If this wasn't a problem, then this wouldn't even be an issue. It's all a diplomatic mess. That-Vela-Fella 02:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

All of the countries explicitly not recognizing some other countries probably do have some rationale. I don't think we should care about that here now, as long as we point to the relevant article. I think what you said is covered in the relevant article given in the last column. Deniz^T_C 06:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the Vatican and the other countries still recognised by the PRC, although they don't have any diplomatic relations with each other? Recognition is not the same thing as lack of diplomatic relations. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

Cyprus

I think its a bit ridiculous for Cyprus to be on this list, since it not recognized only by the country that occupies it, but nevertheless, in the table is says Cyprus has been disputed since 1960, but Turkey recognized it in 1960 did it not?--Waterfall999 07:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct: I've made the alteration. Vizjim 10:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Usefulness of page?

Of what use is an apparently unordered and unsorted list which lumps together Nagorno-Karabakh and the People's Republic of China? AnonMoos 18:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And what possible usefulness is List of countries which lumps together Andorra and Congo? --Drieakko 18:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is of interest to many students of separatism, secession, decolonization, decentralization, etc. to be able to track which countries have or are having problems being recognized. It's not the size that counts but the level of political legitimacy in the eyes of other nations.

Carol Moore 00:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

In the current list, the level of political legitimacy of Nagorno-Karabakh and the People's Republic of China do not appear to be clearly distinguished. AnonMoos 05:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In the third column, the number of countries that recognize each country is given. The distinction is there clear between a nation recognized by 176 countries, as the Vactican is, and a nation recognized by no countries. Vizjim 08:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there appears to be no ascertainable criteria governing the order in which nations are listed in the table -- which makes things more confusing than they should be, and means that you have to visually scan backwards and forwards and left and right in the table to figure out what's going on, a lot more than would be necessary if the ordering of nations made some intuitive sense... AnonMoos 08:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You can re-order the table as you prefer: I have them in alphabetical order at the moment. It's difficult to order them by "number of countries recognizing..." or "order of legitimacy" as that gets you into all sorts of debates about what constitutes a country, the sort of argument that spawned this list in the first place. Vizjim 09:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It sure doesn't seem to be in any kind of alphabetical order to me: -- AnonMoos 15:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Israel
• People's Republic of China
• Republic of China
• Cyprus
• Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
• Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
• Palestine
• Nagorno-Karabakh
• Somaliland
• South Ossetia
• Abkhazia
• Transnistria
• Vatican City
• Bhutan

It's not a big table, although a note is missing that I will add so as to see it in what ever order one wants to see it. I'm sure it was done by year though. That-Vela-Fella 13:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The data in the table use to be several sections that were not resorted after being combined into a table. I have sorted the by name to make it more useful-- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 20:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It was sorted chronologically. The alphabetical order is more 'neutral' and 'user-friendly'; the chronological order is more 'informative', but possibly misleading (subsequent events being related to each other, etc). It does not matter much, no need to have this debate, imo. Are we still keeping Bhutan? Deniz^T_C 06:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Requires massive cleanup or else deletion

The list of unrecognized countries enumerates those geo-political entities which lack general diplomatic recognition

Fine. So then why are Bhutan, Cyprus, Israel, the PRC, and the Vatican in the list? These entities are generally recognized. I don't see the point of this article in the first place, though, since "general recognition" is a weasel phrase. Recognition by whom? To what extent? Etc. --76.249.135.25 (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to be conflicting in many ways. I'll look at getting it fixed so as to be more coherent, since the word general is to open-ended. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Korea?

If the People's Republic of China is listed here, shouldn't also North Korea and South Korea be listed here?

• North Korea isn't recognised by South Korea, the US, Japan, France and some other countries.
• South Korea isn't recognised by North Korea, and possibly not by some other countries either. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

Looking into this matter, they should be included also as said above. As for those 2 below, it once was put in, but reversed & explained dealing with the lack of criteria under the Montevideo Convention. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

NK and USA While it is the case that North Korea and the US don't ave normalized relations, they recognize one another; that is how they can negotiate on nuclear disarmament, for instance, or have six-party talks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What defines an unrecognised country?

"The lists of unrecognized countries enumerates those geo-political entities which lack some form of diplomatic recognition, but wish to be universally recognized as sovereign states."

This sounds a little ambiguous to me. If I were to claim the area around the chair I'm sitting on as a Sovereign State of Chairs, would it then have to be added to this list of unrecognised countries? I would have full control of the claimed territory (one square metre or so).

The Principality of Sealand has full control of its claimed territory (a platform in the North Sea), and so has the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (a house in Rome). The latter even has some kind of recognition from a number of states. Yet neither is mentioned in the lists of unrecognised countries on this page. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

Lakota?

Should they be listed here? Zazaban (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

NO, it's a tribe. This is for countries. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikinews, they declared independence -- someone should look into this, I think. [1] —Nightstallion 17:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

An unelected activist from the tribe declared independence, not the elected leader of the tribe. At best it should be considered a micronation, not a country. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 19:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit fuzzy on what are the exact standards to differentiate a micronation (of which there are many) from "unrecognized countries," but IMHO Lakota is better considered a micronation than a country, and should be removed from this list. --Elonka 16:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think that Lakota (or Lakotah) qualifies as a country yet. According to Montevideo convention, a country needs a territory, a population, and a political authority. According to statemets by Russell Means, the proposed country lacks all three of them. Even the claim of current borders are not yet precisely set, so we cannot talk about a territory. He said he doesn't know yet if the "whites" will work with them, therefore we can not talk about a population (We even don't know if all the american indians will support him). And we definately can't talk about a political authority. (Is this Russell guy a king? an elected President? How does he represent the people to begin with?) I'd say that Aerican Empire is more of a state than Lakotah under current circumstances. Kerem Özcan (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a very interesting discussion, and it ties into the subject right above. What are the criteria for being listed here. The argument for removing my entry of Lakotah was that it does not control its desired territory. But my question then is: Does West Sahara? Actually: Does Kosovo? It is de facto under UN control, not Kosovan control - and parts of the country are not places the Kosovo-Albanian leadership would want to visit (Mitrovica). But I grant that that could not be a criteria: Some fully recognized states have areas they do not control. Anyway: If control is the main criterion, one may argue that West Sahara should be removed and suddenly Sealand has a claim to be here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.36.137.7 (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC) (entry by --Misha bb (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

Kosovo doesn't matter - it *has* recognition, so it can go on the partially recognized list, regardless of anything else. Lakota lacks everything, recognition, control, anything. Furthermore, they haven't made any attempt whatsoever to unseat the authority of the United States in their claimed land, while all of the other separatist areas have. Western Sahara is partially recognized, so again, its actual control doesn't matter, it belongs on the list. However, they do have exclusive control over part of their claimed territory, as does Tamil Eelam. The Lakota do not. --Golbez (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So then the criteria would be: (a) An entity goes on the list of unrecognized self-declared states if it has some control, (b) An entity goes on the list of partially recognized self-declared states even if it has no control. I see how that is an orderly way to do things, so one does not end up with having to list every "state" some joker sets up in his/her back yard. I am now going to say something rarely said on internet debate: You are right, I was wrong. Lakota is out. --Misha bb (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, it did help - we figured out another criteria for the list! :) (This brings up an interesting question, though... is the exiled government of Tibet recognized by anyone? Gotta go check... whew, no, not recognized. That would have complicated things.) --Golbez (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

UN recognition

I think there should be a division in the list between members of the UN, and nations which are not recognized by the UN as being part of the UN shows that the international community in general recognizes the state. For example, Bhutan as part of the UN and in general is recognized as a country. On the other hand, Nagorno-Karabakh is not part of the UN and is not generally recognized as a country. Does anyone have any objection to this? --Lesouris (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that can also be done by expanding the table. But I wouldn't be against a seperation. Why is Bhutan is on the list anyway? Is there any country that doesn't recognize it on purpouse, or it just never got into formal relations or what? For example what would happen if I wanted to walk in Bhutan as a citizen of a country that it never had diplomatic relations? Weird... Kerem Özcan (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Israel

The article says that Israel is "recognized by 158 countries, not recognized by 34 countries" with a link to Foreign relations of Israel where it is said that 34 countries do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. I want to point out that not having diplomatic relations does not mean unrecognition. For example Israel did not have diplomatic relations with the USSR for some time, but the USSR always recognized Israel as a state. There even was an Israeli consulate in the USSR and vise versa. Some of the counted countries had embassies in Israel, but closed them in 1990s or 2000s. I think closing embassy is not equal to rovoking recognition.--Dojarca (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there at least some countries that explicitly don't recognise Israel? So maybe we should just replace the current passage with 'has no diplomatic relations with 34 states'. Alæxis_¿question? 08:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are, but the number is likely much smaller than 34. Replacing the passage would be not much useful because this article explains diplomatic recognition, not diplomatic relations or good relations or friendship or cultural exchange or any other possible type of relations.--Dojarca (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So what do you propose to do? Alæxis_¿question? 10:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the number should be replaced with the correct one or noted that the correct number is unknown.--Dojarca (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I can but agree with you. Alæxis_¿question? 11:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit

After looking in this matter more in-depth & with the above statements, I took it to correct a few problematic areas. A few were more into actual 'diplomatic relations' rather than what this article was meant for. Unless someone has a source for any nation not recognizing the nation of the Vatican City, etc., then it should not be included here. I did also adjusted some of those to reflect more on the actual subject at hand.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam

Should Tamil Eelam be put on the list? It does have it's own de facto control over it's self. Yet is entirely unrecognized. However the government that runs the country is recognized as a terrorist organization by 23 countries. So where would it fit in here? Jordan (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it fits in this list... In order to prevent future disputes some source should be found confirming that it's really de facto independent country. Alæxis_¿question? 20:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

it fits, sure. They control territory currently. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It has partial de facto control, and that control changes; it hasn't even declared independence, according to our own article. I would say it belongs no more than Chechnya does. --Golbez (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam is a de facto independent country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinothan2 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC) "However a majority of the land, including the claimed districts of Jaffna, Ampara, Trincomalee, Batticaloa and Puttlam, is controlled by the government of Sri Lanka." That doesn't sound independent to me. --Golbez (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be included. I'm sure an appropriate reference may be found in the Tamil Eelam article. 141.166.241.22 (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Update in Taiwan status

I just want to bring to attention that Taiwan is now only recognized by 22 nations plus the Vatican City after Malawi dropped relations with Taiwan last month. I don't know how to do the editing and the source citing so I thought I would just bring it to the community attention instead.

Subzero961 2/17/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subzero961 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct & will be now updated. Was also sourced in the respective articles (ie: [2])That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia

I changed the year from 1992 to 1994. Abkhazia was not declared as a state until 1994. Up until then declarations had focused on (a) changing affiliation from Georgia to Russia within the USSR - which does not constitute secession; (b) becoming a very autonomous republic within Georgia.

Confederate States of America

The Confederate States of America should be added to the list of limited recognized nations since the Vatican and the Pope himself, which is a head of state recognized the nation officially.

Dixieparty (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually It should not be on this list, as it does not exist, but there is a list of former unrecognized countries, as I recall. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I notice that the CSA is on the list of former countries, but it should also be on the current list as well since it is an Occupied Nation that never surrendered to the Americans following the 1861-1865 War. Also my main point was that it was recognized by the Vatican, how many nations have to recognize a region before it is considered valid?

Actually to stop a long, drawn out argument over the Confederacy which could ensue, how about adding a list or adding a new article which will list Occupied Nations? Is there any disputes over us creating this list?

It would feature the Occupied Nations of the CSA, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Quebec, etc. To qualify for Occupied Status there would have to be people still around that identify with the former nation. For example in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and in the South people refuse to be called Americans and insist on being called Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, and Confederates. Also in each of these regions there exists various forms of resistance movements seeking to regain control of their former nation.

You can not say that the Confederacy or Kingdom of Hawaii does not still exist, and its people are no longer here. I'm a Confederate, not an American, and as long as 1 person claims to be a person from that former nation then it is still around. Nationality is a mind set which can not be stomped out by military force, or glossed over by ideology.

Dixieparty (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the Confederate government dissolved in 1865, with no continuing claim by any party to its presidency, the government (and thus any partial recognition it had) has ceased to exist. This list also only includes unrecognized countries with de facto control over their territory, which clearly the CSA, Kingdom of Hawaii, et.al. lack. You can claim to be a Confederate, but you have no government under the constitution of the Confederacy, and sorry to tell you, that nation ceased to exist 143 years ago. I could claim to be Assyrian - does that mean we can add it to the list? You're confusing "nation" with a "state" - a nationality can exist without a state, just ask the Kurds. But just saying it doesn't make a state exist. The CSA can only be occupied if there is a significant government in exile claiming such, as there is with Tibet; there is no such government.

So, long story short: The government, and state, of the Confederacy (and Kingdom of Hawaii, independent Quebec, independent Puerto Rico, etc.) has ceased to exist. These cannot be included on the list unless they either establish de facto control over their territory, or significantly (i.e. with the potential to have de facto control) declare independence. The best it could be included in is "List of historical partially recognized countries" or something like that. --Golbez (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Now before I continue let me throw in this disclaimer, I'm not trying to argue or be argumentative, all I want to do is establish dialog with Wikipedia, so please don't misunderstand, just trying to discuss the matter to see what can be done to please the Confederate people and Wikipedians regarding a new more defined status for the Confederacy and her people with in Wikipedia.

The Confederate Government, Military, etc. did dissolve in 1865, very true, but it dissolved not by failure, but instead as a result of the military invasion of Dixie by America's armed forces.

For example, allow me to clarify our peoples view on this issue, we Confederates consider the Confederacy no different then Poland while under Occupation by the Soviet Union, or for that matter any Soviet Bloc nation during the Cold War. If Wikipedia existed back during the Cold War what would wikipedia consider Poland to be?

You see they like Dixie had no exiled government, but yet the Western World considered them to be an occupied nation despite the fact that it remained under Soviet Rule from 1945 to 1991 with no legit form of opposition or exiled government; if Poland is given this special treatment, then why not Dixie, and this is why we Confederates insist on being treated in the same manor as Poland.

Also the Confederacy does have an "exiled" government, with over 50,000 members and growing...

http://www.confederatestatesofamerica.org/

In addition to the above government which now is spreading through out Dixie like wild fire, take our party, the Dixie Party (web site to come 02/04/09) has 8,616 members in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina; and we just received a $150,000.00 donation. The Confederate movement is growing and is much larger then Poland's was during any point of the Cold War.

I like the idea of adding the CSA to the historic list of "Partially Recognized Countries" that is a start. What about creating a current / historic list for Countries that are under occupation that have legit resistance movements. Also check Wikipedia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska, and yes even Vermont all have Separatist groups with over 5,000 supporters; the Puerto Rican Liberation group has 45,000 supporters. In my book that makes them all valid as well.

I look forward to your response.

Dixieparty (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia would consider Poland to be a de jure independent nation under the massive influence of the Soviet Union. However, local, unintimidated rule was returned to the southern states around 1872, as evidenced by their voting patterns; no one would consider them occupied. Having a website does not a government make; it's a nice fantasy, but it has zero bearing in the real world. Compare with actual occupied countries - the exiled government of Tibet has recognition and diplomatic relations around the world, Iraq is clearly occupied and not a part of the United States, Kosovo has declared independence *and has the means to do so*, unlike 50,000 random members of a website. Simply having a group means nothing, it has to be able to do something, either by holding ground, or by getting other recognized entities to recognize them. The groups you note cannot, and deserve no special mention on a reputable encyclopedia. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Dixie is no different then Poland; explain why Poland gets special treatment and Dixie, Hawaii, etc. gets nothing? The same circumstances apply between the 2 nations, both were occupied by force, both governments were dissolved against the will of its people by force.

I also have to disagree with your view of Dixie in 1872, the former leaders of the Confederate States were not allowed to return to power, and in most cases Confederates in general were prevented from running in elections. Take the State of Tennessee for example while under the control of Gov. Brown he used American Soldiers to force State Senators to sign anti-Confederate laws. This scene was repeated through out each Occupied Confederate States. The South in 1872 onward is no different then Occupied Poland, the "elected" officials were de facto candidates because Confederates were not allowed to run; thus why I see no difference between 1872 Dixie and 1950 Poland. The will of the people was silenced by the occupiers.

Also the exiled Confederate Government, Puerto Rico Independence Movement, and Kingdom of Hawaii Liberation Movement all have confirmed buildings, property, and structures they own, which makes them more then just a web site groups. I also would have to disagree with you on the "random" member part, these people have to pay $50.00+ membership dues to belong, and have joined their respective movements to further the cause for their peoples independence.

I still don't see why Dixie, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, etc. are both being ignored when they are no different then Poland. The circumstances are the same regardless if people want to admit it or not.

Dixieparty (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I never thought I'd be saying this in my whole life, but ya know what, this Confederate is 100% right!

After reading what this guy has said I did a little research o my own and came to the same conclusion that he did about the Confederacy and the other ones too, Puerto Rico, yada yada yada.... Both nations were taken over by another country, and both governments were dissolved by the other countries military. Also in both cases the dissenters were rounded up, jailed, etc. In the USSR they were killed and in America they were jailed and in Tennessee with this Brown dude they were shot as well. Also in both cases the VP managed to escape and form an exiled govt in another country, in the case of Poland the Polish VP went to England, and in the case of the Rebels it was Brazil. I think Wikipedia needs to extend the classification to the South as it did to Poland.

Also not too go off topic, Hawaii is also fitting the bill for another "Poland" type situation. Heck we invaded them under the guise of a diplomatic mission and over threw their government by military force for no reason other then to have a port in the Pacific so we could expand.

Lastly I know Wikipedia has a duty to uphold credable information so that itself can remain legit, but excuse me if I'm wrong here why in the hell can't Wikipedia allow these people to create articles for their "Sepratist" movements. This way they can show that they exist, and if they succeed in growing bigger then they can up grade the South, or Hawaii to the list of unrecognized countries?

Take this for example... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Sovereignty_movements&action=edit

and or this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Secessionist_towns_and_cities

Also if you guys can allow freaking LaRaza and Aztland ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Secession) to have undisputed categories and articles, then you dang well need to allow these decent guys to do the same. This is freaking America and while I honestly don't like to recognize dissenters or rebels like Confederates or angry Hawaiians!!?? whom don't like America I respect their right to say "We want out". If they can do it then more power to them, there not evil people for wanting out and its there right per the founding fathers to leave if they deem the government to be "oppressive". If not, and they end up failing, then at the end of the day then they can finally admit defeat and get on with their life's and support America.

Would this make you Rebels happy?!?

Bostonpatriotsrule (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Why yes this does sound like a nice and honest alternative to just being ignored and oppressed. We will go ahead with preparing links for the "Secession Movements" Category. Also since we Confederates, don't consider ourselves to be seceding again since we consider our nation under occupation, thus we may try to adjust the title to reflect a more accurate tone.

I feel that "Separatist Movements" is a more accurate title for what we are, and what the Hawaiian, Puerto Rican, Alaskan, Texan, etc. are as well.

thank you for this data and I hope to reopen this topic in about 5 years once the Confederate movement has succeeded in building a more viable resistance effort. Dixieparty (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey I don't see anything wrong or incorrect with the term Separatist Movement, you guys are trying to "separate" your selfs from America so I don't see how anyone could dispute that.

Also I want to say that these other guys are right too, the CSA has not really done anything since the Civil War so I can see their point as well.

I'm being very Teddy Roosevelt today :) Bostonpatriotsrule (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet ??? Can somebody do an IP check. -- Tocino 01:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Since they haven't edited in over a month, I see no point. (though I do agree) --Golbez (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam (2)

I've hit the 3RR limit, but so far as I can tell, Tamil Eelam does not belong on the list. They don't have control over their claimed territory; the others do. They haven't even declared independence; the others have. And it's disingenuous for the editors to put it into the limited recongition section, as no one who matters has recognized it. How can you "self-recognize"? --Golbez (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

However, while Tamil Eelam does not control all the area they claim (as many recognized countries do, like say, Georgia) there is a definate where thay have complete de facto control of. So while they may have area not self-controlled, I still believ that they should be on the list. Jordan (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of China only controls a very small part of the area it claims, nor has it ever declared independence. Yet, the RoC is listed on this page. (Stefan2 (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

That's a different matter, since it (at least considers itself) the successor to an earlier state. However, I've yielded a bit; but the ROC has held control over its territory for over 50 years, whereas control over Tamil Eelam is still morphous. My main problem was when it was being added with too much information to the limited section. -Golbez (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The essential question is whether they consider themselves an independent state, rather than merely something like "provisional authorities". As long as they permanently control some territory, the fact that they claim more is irrelevant. Their being a de facto independent state depends on there simply being a plot of land with people in it for which they claim to be and act as the state. sephia karta 15:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many independence groups that have de facto gain control over some territories and act as the independence state, for example, many ethnic minorities in Burma, although they aren't rule over all of their claimed lands. I believe that if you use this standard, there will be many many territories to be added in this list. So I support to move Tamil Eelam out. 2 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.159.0 (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

But these groups don't claim to represent independent states, that's what I'm trying to say. This doesn't necessarily mean I support Tamil Elam's inclusion, I don't know what they claim. sephia karta 14:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed Tamil and added the following statement to the introduction: "Every country listed here are self-governing with their own federal government systems." I hope that helps to clear some of the debate up? If not, feel free to further clarify the criteria required to be listed in this article. Let's try and make the criteria as strict as possible so that there is no argument necessary for any country on the list. Gary King (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request

I have requested Peer Review. Please criticize freely :) Gary King (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Illustration

The entire area of Somalia and Moldova are highlighted on the illustration. This is incorrect. Somalia and Moldova are widely recognised; areas contained within their borders that claim independence aren't, but they are smaller. When I viewed the image, my reaction was more or less "wha? since when is Somalia unrecognized?"

I also don't understand why Sri Lanka is indicated as unrecognized considering it is not mentioned in the current version of the article at all. I am guessing this is related to the Tamil Eelam issue, but without a mention in the article the indication should be removed. --99.236.163.79 (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I re-read the caption. I withdraw my first paragraph. (Though the lack of intuitivity in the illustration may be something to think about.) --99.236.163.79 (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam was part of the list when the image was made. --Golbez (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see this from this page or from the history of the article. Most readers would not consult either of these. The image is outdated and as a result not a valid illustration for the article. --23:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.163.79 (talk)

SMOM and Palestine

I see here that palestine is listed as a recognized state when this is not the case, it is merely recognized as a soveriegn enity under international law similar to the way the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is. If Palestine is to be recognized as a state in this article then it is only fair that the SMOM be recognized as such also. Or another option may be placing the two in a seperate category of soveriegn but nonindependent. Or merely a footnote should be added? Any else have ideas? XavierGreen —Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierGreen (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point... though I think the difference is, Palestine makes a claim on territory, whereas the SMOM does not. Do we have any data that SMOM is recognized as an independent nation? From our article: "it claims to be a traditional example of a sovereign entity other than a state." That's from the SMOM itself. The SMOM itself does not have sovereign territory; its land is operated on the principle of extraterritoriality, not sovereignty. Whereas in the Palestinian territories, a much stronger argument for sovereignty - at least challenged - can be made. So, that said, SMOM fails the fundamental part of being a state (claiming territory) so I don't think it goes on the list, any more than the United Nations itself would go on the list. --Golbez (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The SMOM website (http://www.orderofmalta.org/attdiplomatica.asp?idlingua=5) states that they have diplomatic relations with 100 states doesn't that mean that their recognized by those 100 states?

XavierGreen —Preceding comment was added at 03:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If we accept the Montevideo Convention as a statement of customary international law, it follows that the SMOM cannot be a state because it lacks a defined territory (and arguably, a permanent population as well.) One might argue that SMOM falls into the category of "sovereign non-state entities", and that the countries which it has diplomatic relations with have those relations on this basis. (Frankly, I think SMOM would be the only member of this category, but its existence must be viewed as a bit of a historical/legal anomaly, a holdover from the Middle Ages which no one has challenged because no one has any real reason to.) --SJK (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Map

Image:Unrecognized countries.png shows the entire island of Cyprus (except for UK's military bases) in green. Shouldn't there be something yellow on that island too?

Oh, and Mongolia should be green (because of the Republic of China). (212.247.11.156 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

I know this isn't what you asked, but that's a good point - should Mongolia be on the list as unrecognized by the RoC? --Golbez (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, that's ambiguous because of ROC's current status. However, as far as I know, some of the 23 states recognising the Republic of China don't recognise Mongolia, so Mongolia would at least need to be green because of those states. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Actually, it appears the RoC does recognize Mongolia: [3] and has since 2002. --Golbez (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody update the currently used picture on the main article? Entries and map must be identical. --Mattiabonasso (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm...

[4] seems to suggest that Saint Kitts and Nevis recognises several defunct states (e.g. Soviet Union). Should they be listed as partially recognised countries? Should their successor states be listed as partially unrecognised countries? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Hah, surely that's simply using really out-of-date data. Strangely, it is post-Czechoslovakia, but it still has Yugoslavia, but none of the other post-Yugoslavia states, so I assume it means the old Yugoslavia, but that dissolved before Czechoslovakia did... and of course, Czechoslovakia dissolved before the USSR did. It also includes Zaire, which became past-tense in 1997. Very strange. Even weirder? It includes Upper Volta, a name which ceased to be used in 1984. Which leads me to believe that this list - excepting Czechia and Slovakia - dates from the independence of St. Kitts and Nevis in 1983, and apart from that change, they've never bothered to update it. --Golbez (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some of the smaller countries in the world haven't bothered to recognise new countries, preferring to spend their efforts on more important things? Does that make new countries partially unrecognised? Take the Upper Volta case, for example. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

A website is not the final arbiter, we can't say they recognize a country because its name is on a list of visas. --Golbez (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange map

Can anybody please point out why all Georgia and all Azerbaijan are painted red in the map?--Dojarca (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Because I can't draw very well. I just use the 'fill' tool to draw in the countries. The floor is open to whoever can draw better than me. The caption at least covers this problem somewhat by saying that the colored area may contain the region rather than it being the region itself. Gary King (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Lakotah

And what about the Republic of Lakotah?--DanSlovakia (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed a few days ago. Check the Talk page first. Gary King (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Majority recognition

The majority recognition table needs some changes. Most importantly, some consistent criteria are need for including or excluding countries from the table. North Korea and South Korea are both there, but for each one, only one country is listed as not recognizing them. But there are at least 22 UN members that the PRC does not recognize, why aren't all of them on the list? Readin (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

PRC recognises all UN members. PRC doesn't have particularly good relations with countries recognising the ROC; however, PRC still recognises those countries. (130.237.227.200 (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Liechtenstein, Czech Republic and Slovakia

I find the claim on this page that Liechtenstein does not recognize Czech Republic / Slovakia and vice versa to be very doubtful. The fact that all three are members of the European Economic Area would prove conclusively that they extend recognition to each other. Now, they may lack formal diplomatic relations, but lacking diplomatic relations is a distinct concept from recognition. --SJK (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, we find several international treaties to which all three nations are party -- the 2004 EEA Enlargement Agreement, the Statute of the Council of Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Charter, and I'm sure there's more -- if the three states have entered into a treaty with each other (inter alia), that is clear evidence of de facto recognition. So I will remove these entries. --SJK (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I decided not to remove them, because of the press release of the Czech Foreign Ministry linked to. However, the issue remains -- even if they claim not to recognize each other, there seems to be little doubt that they recognize each other in some de facto sense. --SJK (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Being parties to an international treaty or organization doesn't seem to require recognition. For example, both Koreas are part of the same organizations, as are Turkey and Cyprus, and Iran and Israel, etc. However, within Europe there's a lot more interaction, so it is strange that these would be considered unrecognized. --Golbez (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that while the Czech Republic and Slovakia recognize Liechtenstein, Liechtenstein does not recognize them. I copy the declarations the three states made at the occasion of the signature of the agreement enlarging the EEA of 14 October 2003: "DECLARATION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF LIECHTENSTEIN

The Liechtenstein Government assumes that all Contracting Parties respect the Principality of Liechtenstein as a longstanding sovereign and recognised State which was a neutral State during the whole of World War I and World War II.

DECLARATION OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC CONCERNING THE UNILATERAL DECLARATION BY THE PRINCIPALITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN

The Czech Republic welcomes the conclusion of the agreement between the candidate countries and members of the European Economic Area as a significant step towards overcoming the past division of Europe, as well as towards its further political and economic development. The Czech Republic is ready to cooperate within the European Economic Area with all member states, including the Principality of Liechtenstein.

In relation to the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Czech Republic has since its establishment shown a clear interest in establishing diplomatic relations. As early as 1992 it sent the governments of all countries, including the Principality of Liechtenstein, requests for recognition as a new entity in international law with effect from 1 January 1993. While the response of practically all governments has been affirmative, the Principality of Liechtenstein was until now an exception.

The Czech Republic attaches no legal effects to declarations which are not related to the object and purpose of this Agreement.

DECLARATION OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC CONCERNING THE UNILATERAL DECLARATION BY THE PRINCIPALITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN

The Slovak Republic welcomes the conclusion of the agreement between the candidate countries and the members of the European Economic Area as an important step towards further economic and political development in Europe.

Since its foundation the Slovak Republic has recognised the Principality of Liechtenstein as a sovereign and independent state and is prepared to establish diplomatic relations with the Principality.

The Slovak Republic attaches no legal effects to declarations which are not related to the object and purpose of th::is Agreement." MaartenVidal (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't non-recognition normally require that the non-recognising country believes another country has sovereign rights over the territory concerned? That seems to be the case with all the other countries on this list. Most countries believ Cyprus controls the area Turkey designates as the TRNC, China thinks it has sovereignty over Taiwan, some countries think Morocco has rights over Western Sahara, etc. Does Lichtenstein believe that it or a third party country should have control over the territory currently occupied by Slovakia and the Czech Republic? If not, surely this is as case of no formal relations, rather than actual non-recognition? Vizjim (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You supplied a notable exception to the rule: The United States, like many others, recognizes neither Morocco's nor the SADR's claim to the land of Western Sahara. I suppose to them, it is unclaimed land? --Golbez (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In this 2004 speech by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Liechtenstein, it is stated: "It is within this field of tension between constructive participation in the efforts of the international community and the defense of our vital interests that our demand was and is situated for recognition by the Czech and Slovak Republics of our State sovereignty, which was established nearly two hundred years ago."

If I understand it well, Liechtenstein does not want to recognize the Czech and Slovak Republics until they recognize that Liechtenstein was a sovereign and neutral state during the Second World War, which implies that the expropriation of the Prince of Liechtenstein as a "German" was illegal. Yet, it seems that the Czech and Slovak Republics only want to recognize that Liechtenstein nowadays, is a state, without pronouncing themselves on its status in the past. This is also corroborated in the speech held at the occasion of the 2003 signature of the EEA enlargement :

"It is with regret that the Principality of Liechtenstein has to take knowledge of the circumstance that the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic do not accept the fact that has been undisputed within the community of States, including the European Union, namely that the Principality of Liechtenstein has been a longstanding sovereign and recognized State which was neutral during the whole of World War I and World War II.

Taking up such a position, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic carry on without interruption the policy of non-recognition pursued vis-à-vis Liechtenstein by their predecessor State, Czechoslovakia. While Czechoslovakia had recognised the Principality of Liechtenstein in 1938 as a sovereign State, the recognition was not maintained in 1945. This policy of non-recognition has mainly manifested itself when the property of Liechtenstein citizens was confiscated without compensation in 1945 based on the allegation that it belonged to the German people, and such confiscation constituted a breach of international law already in force at the time.

The Principality of Liechtenstein has to state that the lack of respect for the sovereignty and the inherent rights of one of the EEA-States, shown by two future members of the EEA, is neither in accordance with the spirit and principles of the European Economic Area nor with the generally accepted principles of international law. However, in the interest of a continuous multilateral cooperation within the framework of the European Economic Area, the Principality of Liechtenstein has decided to sign the Agreement. Irrespective thereof, the Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to examine the possible political, legal and economic consequences the Principality of Liechtenstein will have to draw in view of the Czech Republic’s and Slovak Republic’s position.

I would like to express my hope that it will be possible to find a solution of this open issue and other bilateral problems between the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic in the future enabling a fruitful and beneficial cooperation between all of the members of the EEA."

I don't find any speech on the ministry's website that mentions an eventual solution of the dispute. MaartenVidal (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Land doesn't have to belong to any country. In 1945, Japan renounced its claims to Karafuto/Sachalin and Chishima/Kuril Islands, giving the area to the Soviet Union. However, the Soviet Union never signed the treaty, and so the Japanese don't recognise Soviet sovereignty to the areas. Yet, they don't recognise Japanese sovereignty either, claiming it to be terra nullius.

Maybe Liechtenstein recognises Czechoslovakia? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

I find this discussion of weather or not Liechtenstein recognizes the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic completely irrelevant to this list. As they are both members of the UN I find this implies a de facto recognition by the international community, after all Montenegro has far less formal recognition then these two states and we do not list it here (see Foreign relations of Montenegro#States that have explicitly recognized the Republic of Montenegro). Listing these two countries clouds the objective of this article. Yes I agree that it is interesting that these members of the EEA refuse to recognize each other, but I think we should all agree here that any state that is a member of the UN should not be noted non this list and should only be included on the List of sovereign states Wiz9999 (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I think we need to find sources that actually say Montenegro is not recognized, rather than having a lack of sources saying it is. Until you can find affirmation that it is not recognized, it doesn't go on the list. Furthermore, the following nations are in the UN: Cyprus, Turkey, North Korea, South Korea, Israel, and Iran. Should we remove all of these from the list, since they only lack recognition from another party in that selection? --Golbez (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but i still think that it is stupid to note countries that lack recognition by 1 state. Maybe only Cyprus, the Czech Republic, North Korea, South Korea, and Slovakia should be removed. Wiz9999 (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro

It says here : Foreign relations of Montenegro , that only 94 countries recognize montenegro , shouldnt it be here as well --Cradel 19:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that when dealing with a majority-recognized state or member of the UN, we need active lack of recognition, rather than passive. That is to say, if we have no source saying they are recognized, that is not sufficient; we need a source actually saying they are not recognized. For example, if I could find no source online that Tonga recognizes Ethiopia, that doesn't mean Ethiopia is partially recognized; however, if I found one that specifically said "Tonga does not recognize Ethiopia", that counts. --Golbez (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Puntland

They declared indipendence in 1998, so is an unrecognized state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.190.45.37 (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Stanza13 (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, they have since stated they want to be part of Somalia as an autonomous state. —Nightstallion 11:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok...I know but...Abkhazia and South Ossetia wants to became autonomous states in the Russian Federation...But they are listed...So I tink also Puntland have to be listed! Stanza13 (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Both of those have declared independence, motivations notwithstanding; Puntland has not. "South Ossetians nearly unanimously approved a referendum on November 12, 2006 opting for independence from Georgia." "On 23 July 1992, the scessionist Abkhazian regime declared effective independence from Georgia" Our article on Puntland says it declared "autonomy" in 1998. Unless you can find a good source that says 'independence' instead of 'autonomy'... --Golbez (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia doesn't want to become part of Russia of any kind actually. Alæxis_¿question? 07:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok!Stanza13 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian National Authority

when the majority of the superpowers in the world do not recognise it, it is therefore a limited one, not a majority one.... also, most of the 108 are either arab/muslim... it's not enough "spread" of a "majority" recognition. 79.176.138.190 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Majority means more than half. 108 is more than half of 192! Are you suggesting we have a different definition for majority (more than half the population? Half the security council?) I think we should include PNA in majority. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The article Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority says that 97 (and not 108) States recognize Palestine as a State, including the Holy See, which means that only 96 Member States of the UN recognize Palestine as a State, i.e. exactly half of UN membership. This is a draw, neither minority nor majority, and could hence more accurately be qualified as "limited recognition". MaartenVidal (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that qualifies as "majority". —Nightstallion 11:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The article Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority failed to provide references for a number of allegedly recognizing states. Whereas I could provide one for Montenegro and Serbia, I could not for Syria. We therefore only have evidence for recognition by 95/192 UN member states and the Holy See. MaartenVidal (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the states recognise the State of Palestine, which appers to be different from the Palestinian National Authority. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

Looking at the article Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, "Ninety-six states recognize the State of Palestine, and 12 more grant some form of diplomatic status to a Palestinian delegation, falling short of full diplomatic recognition" I presume 96+12=108 that was referred to previously. As we are talking explicitly about recognition, I guess we should exclude these 12, and as the 96 includes the Vatican, that makes it 96/193, which, I'm afraid, is less than 50%! Based on this, I'd have to change my opinion and say it was (at present) a minority. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing the heading

Can we change this heading to "Non UN member states". There is no clear definition as to which state falls into this "partly recognized"category. I think that "non UN member" is a better description since there are many countries that are not recognized by every country, Croatia for example is not recognized by Namibia, Burundi, Liberia and so on: http://www.mvpei.hr/MVP.asp?pcpid=1621 --Tubesship (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

With majority recognition states, I think the meaning of the list should be to show those with active unrecognition - that is, belligerence. That a country like Bhutan hasn't gotten around to recognizing Croatia, in the greater scheme of things, doesn't matter too much. However, if they refused to recognize Croatia because, say, they recognize (hypothetically) Serbia's claim over the region, THAT would make it worthy of addition. But if we open this door, we're opening the door for every country who either hasn't gotten around to recognizing all others, or the ones who haven't updated their websites accordingly. --Golbez (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

and that is exactly why the heading should be renamed to non UN members. Otherwise we need to come up with a definition on how recognized does one state need to be in order to be excluded from the category of partially recognized states. I am very much in favor of having a non UN member heading. Jawohl (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

23 more countries to be added

Since 23 countries recognise ROC not PRC, that means these 23 are not recognised by PRC. Therefore are only partially recognised. These 23 and should be added to the list in majority regonition. [5] Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say the lack of recognition is reciprocal? --Golbez (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

PRC recognises all of these 23 countries. (Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

Are you sure? I thought the politic of mainland China is not to recognize countries that recognizes Taiwan and that that is the reason why for example the US and other major countries do not recognize Taiwan?! --Tubesship (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As I understand PRC has a policy of not having diplomatic relations with countries that recognise Taiwan. Alæxis_¿question? 19:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We'd need a pretty solid source on that, though. --Golbez (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Syntax problem

I tried to link to the Japanese and French Wikipedias in footnotes to the DPRK section in the "majority recognition" table, but something went wrong with the syntax. Can anyone help fixing the links? (Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

Ah, figured it out. (Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

DPRK unrecognized by US?

We need an English-language source on this. --Golbez (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Western Sahara?

Should a Western Sahara country be added to the list of partially recognised countries? I seem to understand that a lot of states recognise such a country. The fact that there is no Western Saharan government should be irrelevant: most (all?) countries also recognise Somalia, despite there being no Somali central government. (Stefan2 (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

That's odd There is, but for some reason, it didn't actually mention Western Sahara. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia

the ROC'c minister of foreign affairs has actually made rather strong statements to the press re. Taiwan's recognition of Mongolian independence, and the MOFA statement is quite clear, too ("Based on the principles of equality and reciprocity", "The government of the Republic of China and the government of Mongolia", " This decision is based on the two countries` desire to improve their bilateral substantive relations"). Given this, the claim that "Taiwan does not recognize Mongolia" is just that - a claim, not a fact. Whether non-recognition by a generally non-recognized state would warrant inclusion in this list is yet another matter. Yaan (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, apparently Taiwan's lack of recognition of Mongolia is constitutional - which means, despite any de facto change, it remains de jure, at least at a basic level. That makes this a more complicated case than we'd prefer... [went to look at the constitution] wait a minute, it only prescribes for delegations and representation from Mongolia - it never specifically states, "Mongolia is part of the RoC and is not independent." It's pedantic, but still. In that case, I agree, we should go with saying it's recognized. --Golbez (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Principality of Sealand

Should the Principality of Sealand be on this article as it is an unrecognised state and is recognised as a part of the UK? Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We seem not to include micronations; if we included Sealand, we would also have to include Seborga and Hutt River, and possibly any of the many apartment-based micronations. Sure, Sealand (and Hutt River) have the strongest claim to independence, but I suppose in this case it hinges on if we include only land, or if Sealand counts; if boats count, then anyone could be included on this list just by declaring independence when afloat. --Golbez (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But Sealand is different from other microstates as it has de facto recognition from the UK and Germany. No other microstate as that recognition. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Rhodesia?

Why isn't Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) on that list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.4.25 (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What evidence have you got to suggest its not a fully recognised state? Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The European Union does not recognise the current Zimbabwean government - see [6] Trumpi (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The EU does not recognize states; that is left to its constituent countries. --Golbez (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes the EU, Canada, US ect do not recognise Bob Muguabe govt as legitimate, but they recognise Zimbabwe as a country, just not the govt. They believe the Govt is De Fact, not De Jure. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they do recognize the government of Robert Mugabe. Do you have evidence that says otherwise? --Golbez (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This list is about the countries themselves, not who may or may not be seen as leading the government of the day. Rhodesia(Zimbabwe) at the time wasn't recognized as an independent nation back till 1980. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

True; if it was about the government, we would have to include Myanmar on the list, as some nations recognize Aung San Suu Kyi as the legitimate leader. But that adds all sorts of additional issues; the independence, not the leadership, of the country is what matters for this list. --Golbez (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"partially recognized"?

What is "partially recognized" and where did the term come from? Did a Wikipedia editor create it?

The article uses it to describe Taiwan, however this is inaccurate. Nations don't recognized only part of Taiwan, they recognize the whole thing.

I spent some googling "partial international recognition" and "partial recognition" but I didn't find much. The most authoritative source I found was quite old, "The Institutes of the Law of Nations. A Treatise of the Jural Relations of Separate Political Communities". My understanding from reading the text is that partial recognition occurs when a nation recognizes another nation, but refuses to see it as an equal and does not put faith in that other nations laws, practices or legal decisions. I guess examples of this would be when an Asian country convict an American, European, or Australian of a crime and sentence the suspect, but Americans, Europeans or Australians protest the decision and put pressure on that government change it. If my understanding is correct, then "partial recognition" does not apply to Taiwan.

"Limited recognition" would convey the meaning better, in my opinion.Readin (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is not a country. It is an island, claimed by both the PRC and ROC. Only a few nations recognize the ROC; by virtue of that, they also recognize the ROC's claim to all of China, regardless of how accurate such a claim is. Likewise, many more nations recognize the PRC, and its claim to Taiwan. No nation recognizes both claims, nor does any nation recognize both governments independent of the status of the island. You're obfuscating terms; we use 'partial recognition' to mean 'recognized by a part of the international community', not 'only half-way recognized by a country'. Limited might be a better term, but to me it's identical. --Golbez (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I was, of course, using "Taiwan" is it is normally used, as the common name for the country whose official name is "Republic of China".

Where are you getting your definition of "partially recognized". It contradicts an authoritative definition, and we can't just make up a definition that contradicts known definitions leading to confusion. So where your definition coming from? If "limited" is identical except that it doesn't carry the problem of contradicting an established definition, then "limited" should be used.Readin (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Partially recognise" means only some states only recognise a particular country, not that states only recognise a certain portion of territory belonging to a particular country. Kransky (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Chechnya

Please add Chechen Republic of Ichkeria here or in some other list (historical etc) --130.216.30.233 (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is an historical list of unrecognized countries somewhere; it's probably linked or categorized from Ichkeria's article. --Golbez (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is not a country, its an exiled Government. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Chechnya is not recognized by Georgia. Delete this false information. Ichkeria also is not recognized. "Government of Chechnya in exile" was pro-russian pro-Putin government of federal subject of Russia. Other "Government of Ichkeria in exile" is not recognized and it is not a country. --Quanthon (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Transnistrian Recogntion.

[7] According to this Documentary. Transnistria is recognized by Russia and the Ukraine, as well as Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I won't include this yet in the list, but if no-one can find evidence against this, I'll update this page... opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicMonkey (talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me where in this 8-minute video that statement of recognition is made? --Golbez (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Territories whose status is disputed; with a government body that is recognized by at least a few dozen countries"

Isn't that the same as limited recognition? Zazaban (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That is true, as the 2 shown are listed as such in the sub-topic. I adjusted it to reflect that & as such less worded also.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities

These seem to count as an unrecognized country. Should they be added? Zazaban (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Link? Also, have they declared independence or simply autonomy? --Golbez (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Map needs to be updated

The map needs to be updated so that the other countries with "majority recognition" are coloured brown like China, Cyprus and Israel. Esn (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Also Slovakia, Czechia an Liechtenstein are missing Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Slovakia & the Czech Rep. are already there. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia

[8] Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What about that link? I don't see any specific nation not recognizing Macedonia. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Palestine

I suggest to move it to Limited recognition as it is not a UN member and also it is not clear what is "recognition as a proposed state". It also is not clear whether the Palestinian Authority, which controls the territory should be considered representatives of this state (Palestinian Authority so far did not declare independence).--Dojarca (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is an observer member of the UN & it shouldn't be the PA, but the PLO as the representative (plus of the declaration it did - see here: Palestine_Liberation_Organization#The_PLO_in_the_United_Nations. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But PLO does not control any territory. It is Palestinian Authority that controls Palestine (and it is governed by Hamas, not PLO).--Dojarca (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's right, the PA are responsible to administer the "Occupied Lands", but it's the PLO that is internationally seen as the diplomatic reps of Palestine. Check again what it says in the respective links as to the duties & responsibilities for each group. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel

I read the previous discussion about it, it said 34 states don't recognise Israel, but that number was actually the sates which don't have relations with Israel. I agree this had to be changed, but it was changed in: "Israel is not recognised by Iran", as if Iran is the only nation to not recognise it. Which is ofoucrse, not correct.

On this Wikipedia map from the page of Israei foreign relations there sais this explenation under it: "Countries coloured green have full diplomatic relations, grey have never established relations, orange at one point had relations but no longer, and red have no relations and does not recognise the State of Israel."

So in fact the states that don't recognise Israel (the ones in red) are:

• Afghanistan
• Algeria
• Bahrain
• Bangladesh
• Chad
• Comores
• Djibouti
• Guinea
• Indonesia
• Iran
• Iraq
• Kuwait
• Lebanon
• Libya
• Mali
• Saudi Arabia
• Somalia
• Sudan
• Syria
• United Arab Emirates
• Yemen

This is a total of 21 states (15 Arab States and Iran, Mali, Guinea Indonesia and Bangladesh), therefore I have changed this in the article. Kermanshahi (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is also obviously not correct. For example, Iraq under Saddam Hussein recognized Israel in the borders of 1948. Iraq was in state of war with Israel.--Dojarca (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And what makes you believe that? I have never heared of Iraq recognising Israel, it also doesn't seem very realistic either. Kermanshahi (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

More than 21 countries dont recognize Israel. The full list is of 26 countries. You forgot: Brunei, Malaysia, Qatar, Pakistan, Maldives. --maxval (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia and Abkhazia

Since they are recognized by Russia, shouldn't they be moved?RBM11 (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not yet They aren't recognized by Russia; there was simply a legislative measure encouraging the executive to recognize them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia and Abkhazia are officially recognized as independent countries by Russia. Source: [9]. They should be moved in the list. --DanSlovakia (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What's more, doesn't Russia's recognition mean that the map at the top of the page needs updating? --jha4ceb 12:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Now there is a strange situation: Abkhazia and South Ossetia recognizes Nagorno Karabahk and Transnistria as indipendent, so they too should be moved in the list leaving only Somaliland in the list of no recognized countries? Stanza13 (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I should have checked this Talk page first: I see that it already had a source for the statement that Russia has now recognized A. and S.O. as states. Apologies. Lima (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Waziristan

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but it seems to me that Waziristan fits into about the same category as Somaliland, as an unrecognized de facto state. (I am also curious about Tamil Eelam, or whatever you'd like to call the de facto state where the LTTE is in control.) 68.99.91.120 (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Has Waziristan declared independence? Has Tamil Eelam? --Golbez (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro

I recently read an article which states that dozens of contries still haven't recognized B&H independence. Those are distant countries that don't bother to do that. I assume Montenegro might be in a similar situation (even smaller country, more recent independence). God knows if they are the only examples. In that sense, this article is pointless. --99.234.28.230 (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Got web source, will change.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Recognised/unrecoginsed by UN Security Council states

The Taiwan is currently listed under "Recognition only by one or a few UN states, no recognition by members of the United Nations Security Council" in this article, but Foreign relations of the Republic of China claims that Upper Volta recognises the Taiwan, which according to United Nations Security Council currently is a non-permanent member of the council, so the Taiwan needs to be moved to a different category. Interestingly, Upper Volta seems to have embassies in both Peiping and Taipei: [10] (212.247.11.156 (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

Is there a reason you're deliberately using a name Burkina Faso has left behind? --Golbez (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree (and note to anyone confused that Upper Volta is now known as Burkina Faso) - and I don't quite see why these need splitting. I have reintegrated the two lists into one (as they were before Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia), so the current split is:

• No recognition in any form
• No recognition by any UN member (but recognised by non-members)
• No recognition by the UN (but recognised by some UN members)
• Partial recognition by the UN
• Full recognition by the UN

Any further detail needed can be described in the Recognition column. I suggest that any change to this be discussed here before the edit is made. Pfainuk talk 15:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not just write "by the UN" on the top statement rather than repeating it nearly all the time? Although, it's not actually the UN that does the recognizing, but each nation themselves on a state by state basis. It seemed find before it started to get a bit out of hand here recently.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that - I reckon a return to where we were last week is probably a good idea provided it remains accurate. It just seemed to be getting a bit crazy with people splitting up the Taiwan/Kosovo/Northern Cyprus/Abkhazia table based on number of countries recognising and which countries it was that were recognising - which I think is probably a bad idea. Pfainuk talk 09:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Abkhaz recognition of TRNC?

Sources: [11] [12] Unsure of how definitive these are. There will be better sources out there, but probably in Russian/Turkish. Can anyone confirm this recognition? Vizjim (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, there was talk of that but nothing came of it. The problem was that while it was very much welcomed by the Abkhaz diaspora in Turkey and it could have widened Abkhazia's foreign contacts, Abkhazia's Armenians were fiercely opposed to it, and so was the Church. sephia karta | di mi 23:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nagorno Karabakh

I don't find any sources in the article about cross-recognition between Nagorno Karabakh and Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transinistia. The last tree have recognized each other, they even have a international organization - Community for Democracy and Human Rights. But there is no link for NK recognition. Alinor (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[13]

The Conference of "ministers of foreign affairs" of Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Karabakh -- a forum created in 2000, and largely inactive since then -- is expected to be raised to the "presidential" level at the upcoming Sukhumi meeting. That meeting is further expected to add some substance to a 1994 agreement on mutual assistance among those four parties, including military assistance in the event of conflict.

--83.132.103.136 (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Palestine

The article says "recognised as a proposed state" but in fact the countries that don't recognise Israel, recognise the entire area (WB, Gaza & Israel proper) as the state of Palestine. Also the other states that recognise Palestine don't support it's creation (as this article claims) but in fact recognise the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a state called Palestine. Kermanshahi (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction

I think that sentences "...is represented as part of...in the UN..." is not best choice of words. For example, we cannot say that Georgia represent people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia since Georgian authorities aim to attack Abkhazia and South Ossetia by military force and to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing against native Abkhaz and Ossetian population. 212.69.0.245 (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And to further elaborate this issue: "normal" regions in "normal" countries usually would send its representatives to participate in central government of the country, and then the country would send its representatives to the UN. People of Abkhazia and of South Ossetia simply do not send their representatives to central Georgian government and thus they are not represented in the Georgian government and they are not represented in the UN. Same thing could be said about other unrecognized countries from the list. Thus, the best description of the UN status of these unrecognized countries would be: "...are not represented in the UN...". Of course, we can also say something like this: "...UN de jure consider it to be part of (country name)...". 212.69.0.245 (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see

Here And discuss it there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Somalia

[14] claims that Russia, Nicaragua and Somalia have recognised Abkhazia. This article mentions Russia and Nicaragua, but there's no information about Somalia. Is there any truth in the information from this newspaper? Somalia doesn't have any government (as far as I know), so how can it recognise states? (Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC))

According to this Russian news agency, Somalia's envoy in Russia said that Somalia intended to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia. However, this, sourced from the same news agency, states that the Georgians deny this (stating that Somalia had never considered the issue of recognizing the independence of the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia). Based on this, I would conclude that Somalia has not recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and I don't think we need to go any further than this on this article. I would also assume that Somalia's "government" in this case is the Transitional Federal Government, which (as I understand it) is organised and internationally recognised but holds little effective control over any part of Somalia. Pfainuk talk 21:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Terms of reference

This whole article needs a rethink, as it gets more complex with more categories, it has become confusing and judgemental. I suggest a rewrite using these terms of reference:

1. No UN Member States to be included, they are recognized countries, and as such part of the international community. Specific instances of one UN member not recognizing another are moot points; of passing interesting, but somewhat distracting. To include the nuance of every little spat between member states would be unwieldly.

2. Countries included to have the characteristics indentified by Articles 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention [15]; a permanent population, a defined territory, government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states.

3. To quote Article 3 of Montevideo: "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states".

4. Micronations to be excluded from the list.

As I see it, the list would include the following countries, which I have listed by date:

• State of the Vatican City (independent from Italy by treaty 11 February 1929)
• Republic of China (expelled from the UN 25 October 1971)
• Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (proclaimed 27 February 1976 following Spanish withdrawal)
• Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (independence from Cyprus declared 15 November 1983)
• Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (independence from Moldova declared 2 September 1990)
• Republic of Somaliland (independence from Somalia declared 18 May 1991)
• Republic of South Ossetia (independence from Georgia declared 28 November 1991)
• Nagarno-Karabakh Republic (independence from Azerbaijan declared 6 January 1992)
• Republic of Abkhazia (independence from Geiorgia declared 23 July 1992)
• State of Palestine (Isreali withdrawal completed 12 September 2005)
• Islamic Emirate of Waziristan (Waziristan Accord signed by Pakistan 5 September 2006)
• Gaza Strip (Hamas seized control from PNA 14 June 2007)
• Republic of Kosovo (independence declared from Serbia 17 February 2008)

CheersNudge67 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

remoned Tamil Eelam from this list Nudge67 (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Re some of these:
  • Has a government of Tamil Eelam declared independence? Did all the MPs do it?
  • Has Waziristan declared independence, or do they simply enjoy an undisturbed autonomy?
• As for your criteria #1, I find the edge examples to be the most interesting ones. This is not an article of "Countries not members of the UN"; that can be its own list. This one is different.
• As for Gaza Strip, that one... is certainly an interesting situation, and one we haven't attempted to deal with, I don't think. --Golbez (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found a reference to the Tamil's specifically declaring independence. The MP's refusal to swear an oath to Sri Lanka was seen as validating the independence of seperatist held areas. There are many independent countries today that do not have a declartion of independence.

In Waziristan, independence had been declared that february, and the signing of the Waziristan Accord and subsequent withdrawal of Pakistani forces validates that independence.

UN membership implies recognition, so conversely non-membership of the UN implies non-recognition. However, it is worth noting that Palestine, Western Sahara, and the Vatican all have observer status at the UN, which in itself may imply recognition of those states.

Cheers Nudge67 (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, most of what is done now in the article seems fine, but what is being said here also needs some referenced sources. Also "There are many independent countries today that do not have a declartion of independence." -are there some recent examples of this?

Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa & the United Kingdom are all examples of countries that do not have a declaration of independence. Nudge67 (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The U.N. is just a world body & has no part in what nations do in terms of recognizing each other. As for the mention of the Gaza Strip above, it's just one political group taking over from another, without implying independence outright. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal: to List of partially recognised sovereignty

I propose we rename the article to List of partially-recognised sovereignty. It is more exacting, and the word 'country' is often too ambiguous for these important (and often difficult) lists.

I will have to be de-featured first, but that is an easy process when this happens - we just apply before creating the new article, and redirecting this to it. An alternative process is a Requested Move.

• support --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• support, as country is too ambiguous. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support principle of a move, oppose this exact name, because I don't think it makes sense. I would suggest List of partially recognised sovereign states. Pfainuk talk 23:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Small change to that - it would be better not to cross the WP:ENGVAR boundary, so I suggest instead, List of partially recognized sovereign states. Pfainuk talk 23:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The worry I had with that was some of the nations listed may not typicallly be called "sovereign states" - if that is not an issue though, I would go for this. Not sure about US English though - is that standard for these lists? It alway strikes me that International English is better for international subjects. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
      • It's the terminology used at the List of sovereign states, but I did think of that issue when I wrote it. We could ditch the "sovereign" and go for List of partially-recognized states if you prefer it. The US/Int'l English issue is potentially controversial, but the rule that WP:ENGVAR uses is that only strong ties to a particular country (which this list does not have) can override existing usage - which is US English. Pfainuk talk 12:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see that this solution is any better than the current one (I do get the not at all versus partially change). "List of unrecognized territorial authorities declaring sovereignty" is a mouthful but more accurate per the meaning of the current title. To that point, sovereignty is the recognition of the authority over the territory, not the territory.
     Also, "partially" can be 1% or 99%. "List of primarily unrecognized territorial authorities" is what the proposed title intends, I believe. —PētersV (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• • The list does include both 99% cases (such as Slovakia) and 1% cases (such as Northern Cyprus), so I think partially-recognized is more appropriate for the material included. Pfainuk talk 12:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support principle of a move, oppose the suggested new name. How about List of partially recognized states? sephia karta | di mi 14:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'd prefer "List of states with limited recognition" or something like that. "Partially recognized" isn't a widely used or particularly good phrase, as this guy points out. 96T (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess it was inevitable that Wikipedia editors unknowingly developed their own jargon. But I agree, if it is evitable, we should avoid its usage. I hereby also support List of states with limited recognition. sephia karta | di mi 14:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll go for this. It cuts out the unrecognised/partially-recognised issue and makes the thing neutral in terms of ENGVAR. Pfainuk talk 16:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• comment: Clearly this will be an interim poll. I'll be happy with "sovereign states", or "states" - although I would recommend actually changing to International English (per that name, really), but it's not a huge deal, even if a wider standardisation is being held in mind. Regarding "partially recognised" - can anyone think of anything better? --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• So we've moved to "List of unrecognized or partially recognized countries". I still think "List of states with limited recognition" is a better name though, for the reasons I've mentioned above. So I was considering changing the title. Anyone who disagree? 96T (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You have my support. sephia karta | di mi 11:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"List of states with limited recognition" sounds like the best title in my opinion. I dont like the "unrecognized or partially recognized" saying limited recognition is clear and to the point. I support renaming it to that. Although i would also support "list of sovereign states with limited recognition" BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)