Talk:List of historical unrecognized states and dependencies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Herzeg-Bosnia was not the state!

Croatian community, later Croatian republic of Herzeg-Bosnia was never adopted law about break up relationships with Bosnia and Herzegovina. It wasn’t adopted its statute. In all aspects Herzeg-Bosnia was respecting suvereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina. hr:Suradnik:Mostarac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.221.10.52 (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Lado District

Does anyone have a good source for Lado being de facto independent for those dates? Was it ever de facto independent at all? I can't find any information on it. Even the Lado District article doesn't seem to mention any period of independence. I'm going to remove the entry for now, and if someone finds any reliable information on this, they can re-add it with a citation or something. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FlagofRepublicofArarat.GIF

The image Image:FlagofRepublicofArarat.GIF is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flag of Menton and Roquebrune.gif

(Problem resolved. Now under CC-SA license.) Goustien (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Flag of Menton and Roquebrune.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Tannu-Tuva

Hey, Tuva was a recognised state! Read documents!=)--Andrijko Z. (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What documents? Got sources/links? That-Vela-Fella (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Lord, This page is a mess!

There doesn't seem to be any criteria for this list. It's a hodge-podge of genuinely unrecognized states, proposed states, states which didn't claim independence, states which didn't achieve independence, and states which weren't unrecognized once they did. There needs to be some kind of specific set of guidelines stated at the beginning of this article, preferably one that's closely linked to the ten canonical modern unrecognized states.

I've tried to clean it up a fair deal, but I still have some concerns about the list. For one thing, can we really say that states from the eighteenth century were unrecognized in the same way as modern Abkhazia etc. are? Today we have the United Nations and diplomatic relations are much more developed. Including states like Vermont on this list strikes me as being a bit anachronistic. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reworked the introduction to conform with that in List of unrecognized countries. Orange Tuesday makes a good point about 18th century entities; when did the era of systematic diplomacy begin? Certainly earlier than the Montevideo Convention. The 19th century? Even in the 18th century, if a country declared independence and most of its neighbors and the great powers recognized another claimant, I think the emerging country would fit in this list. Goustien (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The legal and historical basis for the current Western system of international relations can be traced to the Peace of Westphalia. Ladril (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Move?

Anyone got any objections to switching to "states" instead of "countries" for the page title? The term "country" has no legal meaning in this context, and "states" would reflect the bold text in the introduction. It would also mirror the titles of other lists of the same kind. Night w (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Czech Republic and Slovakia

Shouldn't both the Czech Republic and Slovakia be added to this list, since at least one UN member: Liechtenstein, didn't recognise them until 2009 or 2010? Mulder1982 (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Philippines

This article mentions several historical declared governments in the Philippines which failed to establish themselves and gain recognition. I think of some or all of them as unsuccessful insurgent movements. The list does not presently list what I think of as the main among them, at least in recent historical times: The First Philippine Republic. I wonder what the thinking is on this among established editors of this article.

Also, I'm wondering about criteria for inclusion in this article. The criteria presently stated include, "... control over the territory of a country for which most other states recognized a different government as being the legitimate government". The aforementioned First Philippine Republic could be said to have had control over portions of the Philippines during the Philippine-American War.

Also, during the British occupation of the Philippines in 1762-1764 during the Seven Years War, invading British forces wrested control over the Capital of the country from Spain and, at times, asserted some control over other parts of the country. My understanding is that were it not for delays inherent in communications conducted by exchange of handwritten documents via sailing ship transport, Spain would likely not have retained recognized sovereignty over the Philippines at the conclusion of the Seven Ye3ars War.

Please also see the article Timeline of Philippine Sovereignty.

Any thoughts? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that I was confused; see below. I'm hoping for feedback there. My intention is to wait a short while for the statement of inclusion criteria to stabilize, then to take a look at some list entries in light of the inclusion criteria. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Republic of Ararat.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Flag of the Republic of Ararat.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Why no Texas?

It was unrecognized by Mexico. Any reason why it shouldn't be here? Ladril (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Looked into the situation (via here: Treaties of Velasco) & see no reason why not. I'll add it in, unless someone thinks otherwise. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if Velasco had been ratified, the Republic was unrecognized by Mexico for a time, as can be witnessed since Santa Anna invaded Texas only a few days after the Declaration of Independence. See Convention of 1836. Anyway, thanks for adding. Ladril (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Republic of Texas was recognized by the US, UK, France, Belgium, and the Dutch. True, not by Mexico, but they were recognized and retained de facto control over their territory. (True, they were invaded twice by Mexico after the Battle of San Jacinto, but Mexico soon retreated, and never occupied or controlled Texas.) See DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS OF THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS at the Handbook of Texas. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Help

I added new states including the Republic of Ezo but for some reason I'm having issues with it and I was hoping somebody could help me since there's no reason they should be a problem. Thanks. LoneWolf1992talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Second Continental Congress

Could the Second Continental Congress from 1776-83 count as it was recognized only by France and Spain? - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

As well as the Netherlands and Morocco. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

I see that I was confused when I created the section above. I was probably misremembering the inclusion criteria in List of states with limited recognition and thinking that that criteria was stated in this article. Anyhow, I have now boldly added a Criteria for inclusion section, stating criteria similar to but not identical with the criteria stated in that other article. Please comment and/or revise, as appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Very few of these entities meet the criterion of recognition by another state. For example none of the Americas examples should be there if we are using this criterion, though perhaps the CSA should get honorable mention.--Cam (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia

Should the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia be added to the list for Europe? I am not familiar enough with the topic. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam

Strait from its Wikipedia article. I hope no one finds its addition controversial.

The parts of northern and eastern Sri Lanka which were formerly under the control of the LTTE were run as a de facto state with its own government in these areas. The Tamil Tigers also established a military wing with land combat force, naval force (the Sea Tigers), air wing which they called "Tamil Eelam Air Force", In addition, the LTTE had run a judicial system complete with local, supreme and high courts. The US state department alleged that the judges had very little standards or training and acted as agents to LTTE; it also accused the LTTE of forcing Tamils under their control to accept their judicial system. Furthermore, within areas controlled by the LTTE the Tigers performed state functions including the operation of a civil Police Force, Human Rights organizations, offices for the coordination of humanitarian assistance board, health boards and education boards. It also ran a Bank (Bank of Tamil Eelam), a radio station (Voice of Tigers) and a Television station (National Television of Tamil Eelam)

--189.33.40.151 (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Tamil Eelam should be added to the historical list. Alinor (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(same as first person) Are there any objections?--189.62.170.155 (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the main issue is fixing the starting year. Maybe that should be left blank?--189.62.170.155 (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this would be good enough until we have a date. Alinor (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As of March 2010 Someone has removed Tamil Eelam from the list with no explanation. It cannot be argued that it was not an unrecognised state and it should not be argued as an existing unrecognised state. It should be returned to the list as soon as possible.--70.29.23.176 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam was never declared as an independent state. Then how could it come in this list?--Fahim (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The flag used in this article is the flag of LTTE. It was not of a so called "state". Therefore, Tamil Eelam should be removed from the list.--Fahim (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

East Timor

If East Timor is now recognized, according to its own page and even this one, does it belong in this list? Morfusmax (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

might want to paraphrase that

• Griqualand West: Founded by Adam Kok III as a final resting place for Griqua people.

"Final resting place" usually means burial. —Tamfang (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

post WW I. states in Germany

There were states on unclaimed territory knows as the "Flaschenhals" (bottleneck area). Adviser 17 (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion Criteria changed

Removed the "have been recognized as a state by at least one other state." as this is a list as it is a list of "List of historical unrecognized states" and not a list of historical states with limited recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benuminister (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggested changes for clarification and to avoid anomalies

The criteria currently (and as at 2 December 2013) both include ", lacked recognition from at least one state". This could be read as either "Not all states recognise it" or as "there was no single state which recognised it" I'm interpreting this as the second option. I'm going to reword it as ", has not had recognition by at least one widely accepted state".

I'm also going to add an additional qualification "throughout a significant portion of its de facto existence" this is to rule out inclusion of states such as the United States of America from 4 July 1776 until the Treaty of Watertown 15 days later or Israel from 14 May 1948 until the Soviet Union recognised it three days later 17 May 1948

I doubt they will be controversial but if these changes upset anyone, please feel free revert and we can discuss here Kiore (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of historical unrecognized states and dependencies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309042828/http://www.buckyogi.com/footnotes/natuz.htm to http://www.buckyogi.com/footnotes/natuz.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309042828/http://www.buckyogi.com/footnotes/natuz.htm to http://www.buckyogi.com/footnotes/natuz.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of TRWT.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

africa

it seems to me the lead on the africa section doesn't have anything to do with the subject of this page, no? why would it be talking about cold war to modern era african societal problems? at a length too SettlementMaster77 (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Offhand, this seems like a problem. It's been around for a long time; see this and this. I'll leave it to more regular editors of this article than I to sort out. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

ah i see, alrighty then, thank you SettlementMaster77 (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)