Talk:List of sovereign states

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured list List of sovereign states is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.

Donetsk & Luhansk[edit]

The Donetsk People's Republic has declared independence on 7 April 2014. The Luhansk People's Republic has declared independence on 27 April 2014. They've both had referendums yesterday, showing support for their declarations of independence. They also control territory, and it seems that they recognize eachother. Both states are receiving a lot of attention. I think they should be included in the list. Thoughts? [Soffredo] Journeyman 4 11:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should wait a bit longer to see if the two also want to become part of Russia or remain independent.At least in Luhansk they are already thinking about holding a referendum to join the Russian Federation. A different scenario could be that the two merge and form a new state called "New Russia",so I think we should wait until there is further clarity about their future.Engel1983 (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There are many ambiguities what the separatists have actually declared. In other hand, the question in referendum has been dubious (see: Donetsk status referendum, 2014#Question). I support opinion, that we should wait for same clarification of the situation.

For the benefit of those who may not be aware of what is required for entities to be included according to the inclusion criteria set out in the article, the rule is that we need evidence either:

  • That the putative state considers itself to be a sovereign state, and
  • That the putative state is often regarded as a state according to the declarative theory. This means that we actually have to have evidence that reliable sources - excluding those affiliated to the group concerned - have assessed the situation against the declarative theory and that a state exists. It should go without saying (but on the basis of previous discussion does not) that Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources, and their judgement as to whether the declarative theory is met is insufficient.


  • That the putative state has been recognised as a sovereign state by at least one member state of the United Nations. So, recognising each other does not count.

Soffredo has started numerous similar discussions over recent months, and these criteria have been pointed out every time. It is difficult to believe that s/he does not already know that the sources thus far provided are not anything like enough for these groups to be included. Kahastok talk 17:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Its not ambiguous any more, both seperatist governments in Donetsk and Luhansk have declared independence.[[1]]. I can provide more sources if necessary.XavierGreen (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Concerning to the Donetsk People's Republic, I edited references, but in what ways does it satisfy the 4th condition of the Declarative Theory of Statehood? (a capacity to enter into relations with other states). It doesn't have any relations with any other state!Mondolkiri1talk 03:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
To be fair it's capacity to, not having actual relations. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
At the very least we should see how this pans out before adding. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess only if Russia is suicidal, it will also annex Donetsk!(I hope I'm not violating any Wikipedia rules by writing this opinion in the Talk page)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Russia annexes Crimea,just its people have right for self-determination and they of course don't want to be regularly killed by Right Sector and other nationalist movements. Russia doesn't want to have more problems in their foreign affairs, and it will be very hard for Russian government to decide will they "annex" Donetsk and Luhansk. It's only my opinion, but it seems Donetsk and Luhansk satisfy one (or more) criteria for inclusion: they have determined territories and boundaries, they have population and government. We can change the list data in any moment if it will be necessary. What can you say? Why it musn't be included? Only because it is not clear whatwillhappen in future? The data must be at this moment! Crimea,for example, was included for only 4 days! User02062000 (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
You cite "they have determined territories and boundaries, they have population and government" as evidence that they meet one criterion for inclusion.
But that is not evidence that any criterion is met. That they may have such features is not important per se, if no source brings them together to suggest that a state in fact exists.
In accordance with WP:NOR, the rule is that they must be often regarded as meeting the declarative theory. That means that we cannot say that a state exists according to the declarative theory unless a reliable source has actually examined the evidence and concluded that a state exists according to the declarative theory. The whole point of WP:NOR is that Wikipedia should never be the first independent source to come to such a conclusion, as suggested by some above.
Crimea was included for a day, because it was recognised by Russia, and thus met the other criterion (recognition as a sovereign state by a UN member state). Kahastok talk 21:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with Kahastok. The same should go for List of states with limited recognition, where Donetsk keeps getting added. TDL (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, then let's remove Donetsk and Luhansk from that page! User02062000 (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

In the DPR problem is that we don’t know what it control. Media reports that they control same cities and towns, but in other hand in these cities and towns offices subordinates to the Ukrainian Government are still operate. On the other hand in some areas under control of Ukrainian forces DRP is still operate. In Donetsk (and Lugansk) we have an overlapping control of both sides of this conflict – only certain places (such buildings) in cities and towns are de facto controlled by one side (DPR or (pro-)Ukrainian authorities), and all other areas are de facto uncontrolled. Aotearoa (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, here you are a [2] link (russian) proving that President of the partially recognized South Ossetia recognizes LPR. I think now we can include it in List of sovereign states as it meets 2nd criteria, and put it into some other lists in the category together with NKR and PMR. User02062000 (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the link, but it doesn't change things. The rule is "recognised as a sovereign state by at least one UN member state". South Ossetia is not a UN member state, so it is insufficient. Kahastok talk 18:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. I haven't looked at the criteria carefullu, sorry. User02062000 (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
But we have Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh? [Soffredo] Yeoman 07:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with Soffredo. NKR and PMR have the same status as LPR and DPR. Of course, Luhansk and Donetsk have only few months of history and it can't be compared to NKR and PMR, but they meet the same criteria. I think they can't be considered non-states, they have already been added to russian list of unrecognized states. Anyway, we can remove them if their status will change. User02062000 (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Federal State of Novorossiya[edit]

Should we not include this one alongside other urecognized states?-- (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sealand again, really?[edit]

I moved this conversation from User talk:Chipmunkdavis#Sealand supporter-‎Benuminister

Apparently User:‎Benuminister believes that the Principality of Sealand should be on the List of sovereign states in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Apparently what I'm saying is not getting to him, and I need some source of reason to back me up. —SPESH531Other 03:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Just don't forget 2010s. It's controversial to claim it as a sovereign state I know but by the definitions of a sovereign state held here on wikipedia. This is based on the declarative theory so it has to meet the following. 1) a defined territory (their platform out in the English Channel) ; 2) a permanent population (last recorded population put it at 22 members); 3) a government (it has a king and queen as well as other members who contribute to its daily functions) and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states (this can be done by even local governments). I agree it is only however a defacto independence though since, as of 1987, it falls in British territorial waters. due to a court local court ruling it enjoys a legal loophole however which has yet to be challenged by the British authorities.Benuminister (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Where is the centralised discussion being held on these issues? Talk:List of sovereign states is the main article for these, it'd be a good place. Also, what are 22 people doing with their lives on a concrete pillar in the ocean? CMD (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please explain to User:Benuminister to STOP adding Sealand to the pages I listed above, because apparently my word doesn't make any sense for him.—SPESH531Other 15:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The obvious answer is that it doesn't matter what we think about the declarative theory of statehood. Benuminister has his own interpretation of the declarative theory - micronations often try to spin the declarative theory in their favour - but that's not good enough. No serious academic will accept micronations as states in the sense we use the term here, and they are the ones who get to decide whether the declarative theory is met or not. Kahastok talk 17:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Do not forget that the term micronation covers everything from aspirational states to publicity stunts. This in mind it is up to us a a community to separate the curds from the whey as it were and define which is which. Let me make it clear I do not think all micronation would be safely put on this list the only two I would even consider art the Hutt River Principality and The Principality of Sealand . As by definition of the Montevideo accord Sealand does meet the requirements of a nation should be included. It was discussed in this talk article from 2004 and in this article (both of which were provided by Splesh351 to refute my arguement but support it's existence under declaratory theory)> I would argue that if Sealand would not be on this article then things like ISIL and the Donesk republic should not as well as they did not have embassies with any other recognized state. So I will revert all changes my by Splesh351 until an argument why these entities should exist and not Sealand.
Conversely if we cannot agree whether these should be kept I would recommend a list of states claiming sovereignty should be added. This area would contain both Sealand and the regions mentioned above.Benuminister (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
First of all its S PE sh 531 not S PLE sh 351. Secondly, when you are deciding an issue, you keep the original status quo, not the one you want. Thirdly, where is a source that says Sealand is a sovereign state? Also your argument with Somaliland is invalid because they have a consulate level representation with Ethiopia. Fourthly, you may want to look up micronation. Anything considered a micronation is not put on these lists, mircostates are (like the Vatican, San Marion, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, and Andorra). Also your argument about Bangsamoro is invalid because they had control of LAND! Not a man made object, like SMOM does. And I could go out to sea, hire a comapny to make a little man-made station in international waters, and claim it as a new country--but its NOT!—SPESH531Other 02:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Since I have done WP:3RR within the course of 2 days, I am done reverting until this gets sorted out. I'm not getting blocked for your thick-headedness. (And by the way, micronation is not the same as microstate.)—SPESH531Other 03:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I must apologize for the misspelling of your username there Spesh531, I do not mean this to be an argument as more of a discussion (plus I was in a rush at the moment of). Since you wanted a source that says Sealnd an sovereign entity,just look at p270 of Globalization, 3rd edition: Theory and Practice. Google's book search of it [3] and this wired article on it [4]. Now I mentioned the Montevideo accords earlier I will concede this argument of Sealand's nationhood hinges on the HM Fort Roughs being considered territory. Since it is man made this is currently up to reader interpretation.
Now I did not mention Somaliland in this part of the discussion but in another chat all together. I will concede I did not know it had consular status in other countries. If I said microstate at some point in another conversation I meant micronation (however the difference in definition of those two things lays mostly in legitimacy). Bangsamoro was mentioned, for the readers of this chat, for that fact that it did not have a permanent population, rather it was a rebellion. I was referencing it in accordance to the earlier comment that it was a nation claiming independence much like Sealand is. Also you saying something is not true without your own proof makes it as valid as you claim my comments are.

Also to be clear I'm not trying to edit this list rather the Sovereign states by year lists- Benuminister (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I'm getting a little annoyed more easily lately, didn't mean to take it out on you. Anyway, yes to your last statement, but this is where a discussion will occur. You can't exclaim Sealand sovereign, and then just try and find links. You would also need to find more then one link (that most users have access to). The first link I don;t have access, and the second links exclaims this, :"He [Roy Bates] got away with it, too - sort of. Officially, the UK doesn't recognize Sealand, but except for a few dustups now and then, the government has left the strange little fief alone." My personal belief (just a thought, not an argument for or against the discussion) is that it's not necessary and it is a waste of time and money to attempt to work something out with Bates. I also just interpreted this article explaining how the people of the former military base seem somewhat terroristic, firing "warning shots" at passer-byers. Back to the process of adding Sealand, it takes a lot longer then 1 day to figure the question. I and several users brought up the case of the Cook Islands and Niue, and that took well over a month (for the discussion that actually lasted.) Also if you are going to add it in Sovereign states by year lists and it still exists, that means it would also need to appear in this article (the fact that ISIL, Donetsk, Lugansk, and New Russia are in the 2010 list, I don't know why). There needs to be a general consensus before you add something.—SPESH531Other 04:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I was only considering it and The Hutt River Principality. Honestly the update only comes after doing some research on other minor nations in history. I'm trying to summarize the 1940s right now into a single article as well. I'm trying also to make sure that some nations appear throught the lists instead of disappearing like Couto Misto does halfway through.Benuminister (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
These are not "minor states". They are micronations. It would grossly misrepresent the bulk of the sources to suggest otherwise. The difference between a micronation and a state is well-understood and accepted.
If we were going by the book, the fact remains that they fail the inclusion criteria. We either need sources demonstrating that they are (or were) often regarded as states according to the declarative theory (and that does not mean, I went through the criteria and decided they do), or sources demonstrating formal diplomatic recognition from a UN member state. We have neither in either case. Kahastok talk 17:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


I Tom991 (Tom) removed the section on Western Nigeria late this afternoon on 5/23 at 5:39 PM EST. When has there been a nation called Western Nigeria? I only know of Nigeria! thanks, tom991

West Papua[edit]

The Republic of West Papua meets the constitutive theory of statehood as it is recognized by Vanuatu. As such i have added it to the page, supported by sources. I have also added it and started a discussion on the Talk:List_of_states_with_limited_recognition page.XavierGreen (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 June 2014[edit]

Please delete the redirect page "list of Nations" in order to create a new wiki under the same title. I am using current wiki pages including "list of sovereign states", "list of stateless nations", and other wikis of lists of various indigenous ethnic groups in the Americas, Africa, and Australia to create a comprehensive list of nations. Nations differ from states in that they are a group of people with a unique language, heritage, shared history, and indigenous homeland. Wikipedia currently has no page detailing the various nations of the world, which also differ significantly from ethnic groups. Wikipedia should have a page for a comprehensive list of nations. (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Sorry, but you will need a consensus for this before I can lift the protection. I suggest starting by advertising this discussion on the talk pages of the lists you mention to see what editors there think. You could also advertise this discussion at the WikiProjects listed in the templates at the top of the page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Niue and the Cook Islands[edit]

After much discussion a few months ago it was established (with sources)that Niue and the Cook Islands do not fall under the criterion of declarative theory of statehood. Since they never declared that. Why was the language confirming that removed from the article since? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the removed sentence. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

ISIS yet again[edit]

An editor is edit warring the Islamic State into this article, and has made it clear that he does not wish to "waste time discussing this". In the view of editors here, does it qualify this time? Kahastok talk 20:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are the sources I've provided:
  • Cole Bunzel (January 30, 2014). "The Islamic State of Disunity: Jihadism Divided". Jihadica. Retrieved July 3, 2014. "Nonetheless, the fighting has aggravated intra-jihadi tensions as the ongoing hostilities focus attention on ISIS’s unique claim to statehood and the inviolable sovereignty that this implies." 
  • Jonathan Spyer (February 23, 2014). "Behind the lines: Holding back al-Qaida". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved July 3, 2014. "It has also not escaped Israel’s attention that a de facto sovereign jihadi-controlled zone now exists in eastern Syria’s Raqqa province, stretching into western Anbar province in Iraq." 
  • "How real is ISIS’ statehood bid in the Middle East?". Al Arabiya. July 2, 2014. Retrieved July 3, 2014. "But, they have as good a claim to statehood in the area as either the governments of Iraq or Syria" 
Now I don't get why the Islamic State wouldn't be included since we have sources. [Soffredo] Yeoman 20:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Because they don't say or suggest that IS is either "often regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood" or "recognised as a sovereign state by at least one UN member state". Kahastok talk 20:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
But they're sources showing that the Islamic State is sovereign. I don't get why we can't just include it. [Soffredo] Yeoman 21:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
We have criteria for inclusion, so that we can be clear about what we mean by "sovereign". For example, all US states are formally "sovereign". I do not believe it is sensible to abandon the inclusion criteria in favour of listing anything that anyone considers "sovereign". Kahastok talk 21:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Well we're talking about the Islamic State, which is an unrecognized de facto sovereign state, not a federal state. [Soffredo] Yeoman 21:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
It could be a legitimate inclusion since it is a self declared state with no international recognition. Does it have a defined territory? And a population? Probably. And it has declared independence. Now I don't agree with the Montevideo thing since it has only been recognized by a few states in North and South America, but if Montevideo is the reason for inclusion..... So be it! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any sources that say that it meets the standard of Montevideo? Note that we as editors are not allowed to interpret Montevideo for ourselves, so the source actually has to mention the declarative theory or Montevideo. Saying, "Does it have a defined territory? And a population? Probably. And it has declared independence." is not enough without such a source. Soffredo knows this, as we've been through this many times with him. Kahastok talk 06:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The Al Arabyia article describes what a sovereign state is and how the Islamic State is one. What more do you want for its inclusion? [Soffredo] Yeoman 15:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
A source that says that it meets Montevideo or the declarative theory, perhaps? Or evidence that it has been recognised by a UN member state? The Al-Arabiya source does not do this. That shouldn't be a secret, given how many times it's been explained to you. Kahastok talk 21:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a vote between editors similar to when Niue and the Cook Islands were added? [Soffredo] Yeoman 22:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Audit needed[edit]

This article looks like it could use an audit.

I came here after seeing this edit to the Cook Islands article.

This article says that the 206 states listed are divided into three categories: 193 member states, two observer states, and 11 other states. However,

  • The "UN member states or observer states" group in the table is divided according to the "Membership within the UN System" column into the following groups by label:
    • UN member state (I didn't count them)
    • Blank/unlabeled: 8 entries (colored white which, according to the legend, means that they are member states) It looks like these are intended as redirect hints, but they include Abkhazia, Cook Islands, Niue, Northern Cyprus, Taiwan which don't seem to be UN member states.
    • observer state: 2 (Vatican City and Palestine)

Also, from the info in the edit to the Cook Islands article linked above, there is a consensus in that article that the Cook Islands are not entirely sovereign.

I didn't spend a lot of time trying to figure out the tricky hidden content in some table cells which seems intended to coerce the sorting, but it looked to me as if the the grouping identifier and redirect rows in the table sort confusingly. Perhaps the sorting could be better coerced using the {{sort}} template. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The redirects are for non-UN states, they lead to the entry lower down in the table. There was consensus that in some cases the Cook Islands and Niue functioned as sovereign states, which is why they are on this list. There is indeed attempts to coerce sorting, if you think you can improve it please go ahead. CMD (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)