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.


Poll[edit]

Consensus appears to be against all the proposals put forward below. Mondolkiri1 probably made the best point that a more appropriate place to list these for now would be List of active rebel groups#Groups which control territory. If they still exist after hostilities have ended, then this can be revisited. Number 57 15:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Questions[edit]

  1. Do you believe the  Islamic State should be included in the list?
  2. Do you believe the  Donetsk People's Republic should be included in the list?
  3. Do you believe the  Lugansk People's Republic should be included in the list?
  4. Do you believe the criteria for inclusion should be updated to include these or other states?

Answer with either Support inclusion or Oppose inclusion, followed by your reasons, and then your signature.

Do NOT participate if your reasoning is that you personally believe these states should/shouldn't exist.



1. Islamic State[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. Support inclusion As according to the table I created above and many previous discussions. (Jan-AprJunJul) [Soffredo] Yeoman 17:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    There's no point in denying the fact that the Islamic State is a de facto sovereign entity[1][2][3][4][5] claiming statehood[6][7] since we have many sources saying so. [Soffredo] Yeoman 22:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    And there's no point lying about what the sources actually say, because they're all publicly accessible and anyone who actually reads them can see that they no such thing. What they actually says is that there is the "prospect" of a state, that they have a "unique claim to statehood" and that it is "on its way to controlling a quasi-state". TDL (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    "...and the inviolable sovereignty that this implies." "...a de facto sovereign jihadi-controlled zone now exists..." "...exercising de facto sovereignty over a territory, even if unrecognized by the international community." Need more quotes or sources? [Soffredo] Yeoman 23:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    "The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is no longer a state in name only. It is a physical, if extra-legal, reality on the ground. Unacknowledged by the world community, ISIS has carved a de facto state in the borderlands of Syria and Iraq."[8] "The militants have already asserted a de facto Islamic state in those areas, establishing their own courts, schools and services.".[9] [Soffredo] Yeoman 00:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, you need sources which actually support your claim, not random quotes from sources which say something entirely different. Just because the words "ISIS" and "sovereign" are used in the same sentence, doesn't mean the source says that ISIS is a sovereign state. You have to actually read and comprehend what the entire sentence says, not what you wish it said. Since you don't seem able or willing to do so for yourself, I'll do it for you:
    • "ISIS’s unique claim to statehood and the inviolable sovereignty that this implies" - All that this says is that ISIS claims to be a state, and that this claim implies they claim sovereignty over the territory. Of course this is true, that is afterall just the definition of what a declaration of independence is. But this certainly doesn't say that it actually is a sovereign state, just that they claim to be.
    • "ISIS is on its way to controlling a quasi-state, exercising de facto sovereignty over a territory" - If something is on it's way to becoming something, then by definition it isn't yet that thing.
    • "de facto sovereign jihadi-controlled zone now exists" - This isn't a list of sovereign jihadi-controlled zones, it is a list of sovereign states. Nowhere does this sources say ISIS is a sovereign state.
    • [1] - Interesting, but WP:BLOGS.
    • "The militants have already asserted a de facto Islamic state" - This is a list of sovereign states, not islamic states. Do all islamic states need to be sovereign states? TDL (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    It being a "de facto sovereign jihadi-controlled zone", "de facto Islamic state", or being "on its way to controlling a a quasi-state" doesn't change the reality of the de facto sovereignty the Islamic State holds.
    • "The Islamic State has de facto control of a whole swathe of territory stretching from eastern Syria to the environs of Baghdad and last month declared a caliphate..."[10]
    • "After its recent advances through northern Iraq, ISIL now controls approximately 35,000 square miles — according to The Economist, giving ISIL de facto control over 6 million people."[11]
    • "Residents say ISIL has had de facto control for months and the only difference is that now it is official."[12]
    • "Therefore, the key point is that the “Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham” is no longer the name of a movement, or the expression of an aspiration. As of now, it is a descriptive term applying to a de facto sovereign space, taking in a large swath of western Iraq and eastern and northern Syria."[13]
    • "Until recently, had anyone said that in 2014 a de facto sovereign al-Qa’ida state would emerge, absorbing large swathes of western Iraq and parts of Syria, he would have been called a lunatic. But this is something that has come to pass to nearly everyone’s surprise."[14]
    • "The possession by Al-Qaeda-linked groups of a de facto sovereign area in Syria is itself a matter of deep concern for Israel and the west."[15]
    • "...ISIS now exercises de facto sovereignty with many attributes of government, such as keeping order and providing basic services."[16]
    I hope more sources help. [Soffredo] Yeoman 22:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Well if a state is not suzerain or a vassal to another, it would be sovereign under the ordinary meaning of the word state in terms of international law. Otherwise it would not be a state.XavierGreen (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support inclusion The Islamic state has a hold on territory. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support inclusion Considering the strong foothold the Islamic State has, it looks like they are here to stay. They are also making their voices heard whether we like it or not. It's only matter of time before their sovereignty is eventually recognized at this point. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support inclusion Being that they have a stable population (with a some emmigration due to the crisis), an embassy, a military, a capital, a stable economy, etc. I think it's time. To leave them off this list could be viewed as biased. I also support Supersaiyen's points. Newyorkbrad has a good point as well too though. Will the critera be met soon? Yes. Are they going to be conquered, over-run, over-taken or just die off? No. It's time now in my opinion. For more evidnece see Talk:List of states with limited recognition#List of states with limited recognition. Rightswatcher (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support inclusion They have a stable military, economy, government, population etc., and they have quite the hold of their lands. It's only a matter of time until they're officially a sovereign state. Petrikov (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support inclusion They are a stable state. --maxval (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support inclusion Though i am opposed to the existence of this polity, an objective political scientist would find that it satisfies the declarative theory of statehood as set forth in the Montevideo convention and would include it in a list of sovereign states under that theory.XavierGreen (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    No, an objective political scientist wouldn't find it so, because they would understand that the declarative theory of statehood as set forth in Article 1 in the Montevideo convention is mitigated by Article 11 which prohibits the use of military force or coercion to establish a state, the intent is to distinguish between sovereign and puppet states to make sure that marionette governments do not get international recognition. --Nug (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    If objective political scientists would come to XavierGreen's conclusion, he would be able to cite one. He's made this argument several times before and he has never been able to provide any such cite. It doesn't matter what XavierGreen thinks sources ought to say, it matters what they do say, and none of them come to the conclusion he reaches. Kahastok talk 21:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support inclusion per Talk:List of states with limited recognition#Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant elmasmelih 14:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support inclusion and I'm really tired of explaining why. 3bdulelah (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose inclusion Unrecognized by anyone, and too soon. Reevaluate in a couple of months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    Note that Somaliland is unrecognized by anyone but it's included in the list. And how is this too soon knowing that the group started in 2003, and the original Islamic State of Iraq was proclaimed in 2006, while the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant declared independence at the beginning of this year (it was the caliphate that was later established)? [Soffredo] Yeoman 01:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    That ISIS was proclaimed years ago is irrelevant. The Principality of Sealand was proclaimed decades ago. ISIS's claims to statehood is the relevant issue, and that is a recent development. Wiki is WP:NOTNEWS: we must wait for sources to reach the conclusion that it is a sovereign state rather than rushing to make our own unsourced guesses at what the sources may one day say. TDL (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    "...and the inviolable sovereignty that this implies." "...a de facto sovereign jihadi-controlled zone now exists..." "...exercising de facto sovereignty over a territory, even if unrecognized by the international community." "The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is no longer a state in name only. It is a physical, if extra-legal, reality on the ground. Unacknowledged by the world community, ISIS has carved a de facto state in the borderlands of Syria and Iraq." "The militants have already asserted a de facto Islamic state in those areas, establishing their own courts, schools and services."
    I only mentioned the time ISIL was originally proclaimed since Newyorkbrad said it was "too soon". Also, do you think these quotes help with reaching a conclusion? [Soffredo] Yeoman 01:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Not any more than the first umpteen times you quoted them, and not at all if you can't actually understand what they say. TDL (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose inclusion - the table above does not support inclusion. The provided sources simply report that some territory is de facto controlled by this faction. Other speculate that it might become a state in the future - but see WP:CRYSTAL.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Some sources state it's already a de facto state,[17][18] so this wouldn't be speculation related to WP:CRYSTAL. [Soffredo] Yeoman 01:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose inclusion - This is a list of sovereign states under international law. No one has yet to provided any sources which say that ISIS is a sovereign state under international law. Claiming that they are, in the absence of any sources, is WP:OR. TDL (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose inclusion -- As with all affirmations of reality, the onus is on the contender. The weight of opinions for inclusion include irrelevant statements of fact such as the physical possession of territory, the opportunity for ideological projection, and the dubious prediction of modest longevity. The rest are factually incorrect: the presences of a military, a diplomatic catalyst, the stability in economy and demography, and an appeal to fairness. The corpus of a nation is the statute of laws manifesting themselves into a system of government. This reality, regardless of international disregard, does not yet exist in the swath of land under the nominal control of the ISIS religious militia. If and when this changes we should reexamine the issue. GraniteSand (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Strong oppose There is already a section of "Groups which control territory" in the article List of active rebel groups which is the appropriate one to include these groups, and where they are included. To be a sovereign state, even with limited recognition (List of states with limited recognition) they have to 1 - satisfy the declarative theory of statehood or 2 - be recognized as a state by at least on UN member state, as it's described in that article, and those conditions are not satisfied by neither entity (though Novorossiya is recognized by South Ossetia, but this one is not a UN member state) Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    The Constitutive Theory itself doesn't call for recognition from UN member states; that's been changed by Wikipedia editors for the criteria. This is why changing the criteria for inclusion (specifically the second part) has been proposed below. [Soffredo] Yeoman 23:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Actually it's more complicated than that. Recognition by a single state doesn't create a de jure state. See this which says "Under the so-called "constitutive" theory, a territory is not a state unless it is generally recognized as such by other states". Or this which says "there is no clear explanation of what level of recognition actually establishes de jure statehood within the international community. Abkhazia and South Ossetia, for example, are recognized by four UN member states but are still genereally considered de facto states by international bodies." TDL (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose inclusion pending some evidence that they meet the inclusion criteria, i.e. that says they satisfy the declarative theory or are recognised by a UN member state. Per WP:NOR, Wikipedia should never be the first independent source to come to the conclusion that a state exists according to the declarative theory as is proposed. The only evidence we have that analyses international law in terms of the declarative theory actually comes to the opposite conclusion (that ISIS does not meet the criteria). Kahastok talk 07:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    We also have this which explains what a state is and how the Islamic State has a legitimate claim to statehood. [Soffredo] Yeoman 12:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Have you actually read that sources? It certainly does not say that "the Islamic State has a legitimate claim to statehood". What it actually says is that "they have as good a claim to statehood in the area as either the governments of Iraq or Syria", but they also say "Syrian or Iraqi governments represent states in a U.N. council meeting much more than they represent actual existing states in Mosul, in Tikrit, in Fallujah, or in ar-Raqqah." So saying ISIS is more of a state than a non-existing state isn't all that convincing. TDL (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed, I find my point stands. Soffredo's source does not mention the declarative theory. The only source that analyses the situation according to the declarative theory of statehood - as required by our inclusion criteria - concludes that ISIS is not a state under that theory. If we included ISIS, we would be the first independent source to analyse the declarative theory and conclude that ISIS satisfies it, which is not allowed per WP:NOR. Kahastok talk 17:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Which is why changing the criteria for inclusion has been proposed below? [Soffredo] Yeoman 01:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    So you should think we should call things formally sovereign states regardless of whether anyone actually believes them to be formally sovereign states or not? Kahastok talk 21:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Oppose inclusion - as has been pointed out, This is a list of sovereign states under international law. There are other articles where this may belong but not this one. If there are others that are in this list that don't belong then remove them, they can't be used as a rationale for adding this. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Oppose inclusion - there is no evidence that ISIS/ISIL recognizes international law. Consequently, it is unsuitable for the page. It may be suitable for the list of excluded entities under List of states with limited recognition, though. Ladril (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Comment A state only has to be recognized by one other legitimate state. ISIS recognizes sharia law (which is valid legal system) and would not likely acknowledge or concede to "recognizes international law" at this time.Rightswatcher (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    It is not in fact recognised by any. Kahastok talk 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Note that Somaliland has no recognition too, but it's included in the List. Using this as a reason doesn't really pass. [Soffredo] Yeoman 23:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    We can cite that Somaliland meets the declarative theory. You've been given sources that demonstrate this before. You cannot do this for ISIS. Kahastok talk 21:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    "A state only has to be recognized by one other legitimate state" is what the constitutive theory is. Note that this doesn't matter to most editors here, as they see UN membership as a requirement for "legitimate state"s. South Ossetia is included on the List, so wouldn't that make it a "legitimate state"? Apparently not. South Ossetia has recognized both the LNR and DNR, but here we are having a poll about including them or not. [Soffredo] Yeoman 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Well, since you have argued that ISIS should be on this list, then you must claim that ISIS is a "legitimate state". You also claim that ISIS hosts an embassy of the "Emirate of Aleppo", and thus we will be forced to add the "Emirate of Aleppo" to the list since they have diplomatic relations with ISIS. TDL (talk)
    Maybe read my proposal on changing the criteria for inclusion below? [Soffredo] Yeoman 23:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  9. Oppose inclusion, the four qualifications of "a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." is not applicable if those qualifications where "obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily". Given the fact that the leaders of ISIL are using force to impose the Islamic State on the territory of Syria and Iraq disqualifies it in terms of the declarative theory of statehood. --Nug (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Couldn't we say the same for all de facto states included on the List as they are results of war? [Soffredo] Yeoman 22:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Your hyperactive presence in a set of polls you've started may be doing you more harm than good. When requesting comment or starting a poll it's generally considered good form to not try to argue with everyone who stops by to participate. It's off-putting and gives the impression of defensive desperation. Maybe take a break and let some outside consensus form. Just a thought; take it how you will. GraniteSand (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  10. Oppose inclusion because is a) unrecognised, b) does not meet criteria of statehood.--Yopie (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  11. Oppose inclusion, this is the rebel group not a state. Aotearoa (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  12. Oppose inclusion, the proposed inclusion is at least premature. IS is so far to have all attributes of a sovereign state, it is still rather rebel group. Let's return to the issue a few months after. Jan CZ (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  13. Oppose inclusion, let's set a certain period of updating this list (annually, for example) so that we don't have to change something each time some insurgents grab a town or two somewhere in the world. In case of IS(IS) they could conceivably a) take control of Iraq, b) take control of Syria, c) be bombed out of existence and d) hold on to the land they control; in each case the consequences for this list are different. Alæxis¿question? 12:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  14. Oppose inclusion - This is absurd. Not even those guys believe it. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Question -- Several editors have characterized ISIS's condition with the qualifier "stable". In light of the rapidly shifting situation in Syria and Iraq I'm wondering what the litmus those editors are employing to decide on stability and, specifically, what role that plays in their crediting ISIS with being a sovereign state. GraniteSand (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Stable: it maintains stable, relatively permanent control over its territory. --maxval (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It's irrelevant as Wikipedians' original analysis of a proposed state's stability does not form part of criteria for inclusion. Kahastok talk 17:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I mean, the Islamic State has established offices and an embassy, so I think it's safe to call it "stable" to some extant. [Soffredo] Yeoman 22:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
What souces say they have established an embassy? TDL (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
“In Raqqa, ISIS has offices for everything you can imagine: health, education, security, Islamic aid, tribal relations management, and even an embassy of the emirate of Aleppo,” (Source)
Maybe you should read what people are saying when participating in a discussion? The quote and article have been linked before. [Soffredo] Yeoman 23:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, here's another source stating the Islamic State has already established "their own courts, schools and services." As I said before, the state really does seem "stable" to some extant. [Soffredo] Yeoman 00:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
And maybe before you make accusations, you should get your facts straight? That quote has never once been included on this talk page. You linked to it in your table but never actually mentioned it. Given all the WP:TL;DR WP:IDHT filled with bogus info you post, you shouldn't be shocked that people have started ignoring all your nonsense.
So basically your argument is that ISIS is a sovereign state because they established an embassy with another non-existant state? [2] Of course that is a ridiculous argument. Look at all the embassies that Sealand has: [3]!!! TDL (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The Islamic State is a soveriegn state because it satisfys the declarative theory of statehood. No where within the standard definition of the declarative theory (ie as laid out in the Montevideo convention) does the word stable come into play. Also whether or not the Islamic State carries out relations is not an issue, rather whether or not it has a capacity to have relations. Objectively in the modern world that criteria is relatively meaningless, anyone can sign a treaty and isis has carried out relations with other rebel groups.XavierGreen (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
And yet nobody can provide a source that claims that it satisfies the declarative theory of statehood. So far as we can tell, the only people on the entire planet who think ISIS meets the declarative theory are Wikipedia editors. There is not a single academic, journalist, lawyer or other expert that has concluded that the requirements are satisfied. If it were as obvious as you suggest, such experts would be trivial to find and yet in the last six months nobody has found one. Kahastok talk 21:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why my sourced information is "bogus", but alright? 22:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

New Source A new article titled "The Islamic State and the International Politics of Statehood in the Middle East" has been published. It describes the Islamic State as showing some attributes of statehood. Throughout the article, it calls the Islamic State a "de facto state", "unrecognized state", "intermediary bod[y]", and by the end, simply a "state". [Soffredo] Yeoman 23:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Another valiant effort at cherrypicking quotes and misrepresentation, but a quick look at the source reveals the truth. The article actually says "One possibility is to think of the Islamic State as a ‘de facto state’" and then goes on to say "Rather than consider them unrecognised states, another option that is potentially more useful would be to consider them as intermediary bodies, state-like in some respects, but not in others." The entire premise of the article is that ISIS is something entirely new, and not a traditional state. TDL (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Note - According to Soffredo, the Islamic State claims to hosts an embassy of the "Emirate of Aleppo", which was recently declared. Since the Islamic State and the Emirate of Aleppo have diplomatic relations, we will be forced to add them to this list of we add ISIS. TDL (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't have sources calling them sovereign, unlike the Islamic State. And South Ossetia recognizing the DNR and LNR would be different, as South Ossetia is recognized by 4 UN members. See my proposal for changing the criteria for inclusion below. And it's not according to me that the Islamic State hosts an embassy, it's according to the source I've provided. [Soffredo] Yeoman 22:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


2. Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. Support inclusion As according to the table I created above and many previous discussions. [Soffredo] Yeoman 17:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support inclusion They are being supported by a superpower (Russia). Just like Crimea, it looks like they will eventually succeed in becoming independant or part of the Russian Federation; in fact, you might even argue that they already are. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support inclusion They are a stable state. --maxval (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support inclusion Satisfies the declarative theory and the constitutive theory. An objective political scientist would include it in a list of sovereign states which what this list purports to be.XavierGreen (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    No it doesn't. An objective political scientist would understand that the declarative theory of statehood as set forth in Article 1 in the Montevideo convention is mitigated by Article 11 which prohibits the use of military force or coercion to establish a state, the intent is to distinguish between sovereign and puppet states to make sure that marionette governments do not get international recognition. --Nug (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    If objective political scientists would come to XavierGreen's conclusion, he would be able to cite one. He's made this argument several times before and he has never been able to provide any such cite. It doesn't matter what XavierGreen thinks sources ought to say, it matters what they do say, and none of them come to the conclusion he reaches. Kahastok talk 21:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support inclusion per Talk:List of states with limited recognition#Breakaway states in Ukraine and Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 10elmasmelih 14:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose inclusion Barely recognized by anyone, exceptionally fluid and unsettled situation, and the existence of the state appears to be largely for propaganda purposes (this is not a fait accompi in the same way the annexation of Crimea is). Reevaluate in a couple of months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose inclusion The case here is even weaker than for the Islamic state above as essentially no sources are provided to even try and buttress the claim. And arguing "per many previous discussions" (What discussions? Where? Why should we care about them?) is specious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - This is a list of sovereign states under international law. No one has yet to provide any sources which say that the Donetsk PR is a sovereign state under international law. Claiming that they are, in the absence of any sources, is WP:OR. TDL (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Donetsk is recognized both by South Ossetia and the LNR, so it is a sovereign state in some level of international law. [Soffredo] Yeoman 12:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    According to your personal opinion but not according to any known sources. If you want to argue that it is a sovereign state under international law then show us sources that say that rather than telling us that it is so. TDL (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose inclusion - This is a list of sovereign states under international law, and the DNR is a wholly unrecognized sate. Furthermore, if we are to discuss 'sovereignty', then the DNR holds no sovereignty. It has no government functions, its claimed territory is receding by the day, and has no citizenry. Further, it is a member of the "New Russia" federation, which makes New Russia the sovereign of the DNR, which is just a province. Even their soldiers fly the confederate flag rather than the DNR flag these days. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 04:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    You obviously aren't informed on how the New Russia federation works. Similar to the Union State, it's simply a confederation between the DNR and LNR. They are still separate states acting on their own. Know what you're saying before you make your reasoning, maybe? Also, there is some sort of "citizenry" as people already have DNR passports. [Soffredo] Yeoman 12:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Also, the DNR isn't a "wholly unrecognized state" as it is recognized by both the LNR and South Ossetia. [Soffredo] Yeoman 23:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose inclusion for the same reasons that I expressed above, concerning to the Islamic State.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose inclusion pending some evidence that they meet the inclusion criteria, i.e. that says they satisfy the declarative theory or are recognised by a UN member state. Per WP:NOR, Wikipedia should never be the first independent source to come to the conclusion that a state exists according to the declarative theory as is proposed, and South Ossetia is not a UN member state. Kahastok talk 07:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    South Ossetia recognizing the DNR and LNR despite not being a UN member is why a change to the criteria for inclusion has been proposed below. [Soffredo] Yeoman 23:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    And I objected to that proposal in detail below. Given the evidence here, I see no reason why we would feel the need to change the criteria to ensure that they would be included. Indeed, I would consider such a change to be a fairly serious violation of WP:NPOV, given that the claim that they are sovereign is such a tiny minority view among both the academic community and the international community. Kahastok talk 21:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Oppose inclusion as per my comments above. And Kahastok and Black Future. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Black Future's post is incorrect, as it shows they don't know how Novorossiya (New Russia) works or the fact that a sort of citizenship has been established. See my comment. [Soffredo] Yeoman 22:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Oppose inclusion, the four qualifications of "a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." is not applicable if those qualifications where "obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily". Given the fact that the leaders of this puppet state are citizens of another state, Russia, which is also directly and indirectly using coercive measures and force to impose it on the territory of Ukraine disqualifies it in terms of the declarative theory of statehood. --Nug (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  9. Oppose inclusion because is a) unrecognised, b) does not meet criteria of statehood.--Yopie (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  10. Oppose inclusion, this is the rebel group not a state. Aotearoa (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  11. Oppose inclusion, let's set a certain period of updating this list (annually, for example) so that we don't have to change something each time some insurgents grab a town or two somewhere in the world. Alæxis¿question? 12:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments[edit]



3. Lugansk People's Republic[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. Support inclusion As according to the table I created above and many previous discussions. [Soffredo] Yeoman 17:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    The Lugansk People's Republic is even forming their own football club and competing against FK Novi Sad. (1) [Soffredo] Yeoman 01:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Then go add it to List of men's national association football teams. But having a national team doesn't make you a sovereign state. Just ask Scotland. TDL (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support inclusion Just like Crimea, they are being supported by a superpower (Russia) and will eventually succeed. This is not the first time this happened and it most likely won't be the last. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support inclusion They are a stable state. --maxval (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support inclusion Satisfies the declarative theory and the constitutive theory. An objective political scientist would include it in a list of sovereign states which what this list purports to be.XavierGreen (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    No it doesn't. An objective political scientist would understand that the declarative theory of statehood as set forth in Article 1 in the Montevideo convention is mitigated by Article 11 which prohibits the use of military force or coercion to establish a state, the intent is to distinguish between sovereign and puppet states to make sure that marionette governments do not get international recognition. --Nug (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    If objective political scientists would come to XavierGreen's conclusion, he would be able to cite one. He's made this argument several times before and he has never been able to provide any such cite. It doesn't matter what XavierGreen thinks sources ought to say, it matters what they do say, and none of them come to the conclusion he reaches. Kahastok talk 21:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    States have been created through coercion and force since they first were created some 7-8000 years ago. To suggest that a state cannot be created through such means is a joke. The very essence of the first multicity states in Mesopotamia was one forged through conquest, which by its very nature constitutes coercion and force.XavierGreen (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    Dude, are you kidding? The concept of "sovereign state" didn't even exist 7000 years ago in ancient Mesopotamia. It was the Peace of Westphalia of the 17th century that established the current world order and the notion of a sovereign state free from external interference. Puppet regimes set up by external actors don't qualify as sovereign states, whereas internal regimes set up by internal actors do qualify as sovereign states. Both could use force, but the former is disqualified because of the involvement of an external actor. --Nug (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    A puppet regime can none the less be a state, hence the term puppet state. Northern Cyprus is in essence a puppet state, and is included in this list. As for the dawn of statehood, one merely needs to look at the Roman Empire to disprove your claim that statehood dawned from the peace of westphalia. There had been strong centralized states for several millenia before the thirty years war. Egypt, Sumer, Akkad, Assyria Babylon, the Selucid Empire ect.XavierGreen (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    There are lots of states that shouldn't be included in this list. A puppet regime can be a state, but not a sovereign state, because "sovereignty" means the exercise supreme independent authority and that cannot happen with the presence of a external puppet master pulling the strings. And this is supposed to be a list of sovereign states as defined by the Montevideo convention, not a list of puppet states, ancient city states or empire states. --Nug (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support inclusion per Talk:List of states with limited recognition#Breakaway states in Ukraine and Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 10elmasmelih 14:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose inclusion Barely recognized by anyone, exceptionally fluid and unsettled situation, and the existence of the state appears to be largely for propaganda purposes (this is not a fait accompi in the same way the annexation of Crimea is). Reevaluate in a couple of months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose inclusion and this one is even weaker than the Donetsk one. Per Kahastok's more accurate table.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose inclusion - This is a list of sovereign states under international law. No one has yet to provide any sources which say that the Lugansk PR is a sovereign state under international law. Claiming that they are, in the absence of any sources, is WP:OR. TDL (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose inclusion - This is a list of sovereign states under international law, and the LNR is a wholly unrecognized sate. Furthermore, if we are to discuss 'sovereignty', then the LNR holds no sovereignty. It has no government functions, its claimed territory is receding by the day, and has no citizenry. Further, it is a member of the "New Russia" federation, which makes New Russia the sovereign of the LNR, which is just a province. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 04:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose inclusion for the same reasons that I expressed above, concerning to the Islamic State.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Besides that, in that case you'd also have to include, for instance Al-Shabaab, and eventually the Principality of Sealand, Principality of Hutt River, so on. Concerning to Novorossiya, the only particular aspect that differentiates it from the others is that in fact it's recognized by one state with limited recognition, which is South Ossetia, not recognized by the UN.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Al-Shabaab doesn't claim statehood, while Sealand and Hutt River are widely considered micronations. So we really wouldn't have to include them now would we? [Soffredo] Yeoman 23:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Why not? Bear in mind that the reason we currently don't include micronations is the same as the reason we don't include Donetsk and Luhansk. Kahastok talk 21:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Donetsk and Lugansk aren't considered micronations. The article already has a note saying "Entities considered to be micronations are not included." so we wouldn't have to worry about them. [Soffredo] Yeoman 22:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose inclusion pending some evidence that they meet the inclusion criteria, i.e. that says they satisfy the declarative theory or are recognised by a UN member state. Per WP:NOR, Wikipedia should never be the first independent source to come to the conclusion that a state exists according to the declarative theory as is proposed, and South Ossetia is not a UN member state. Kahastok talk 07:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Oppose inclusion as per my comments above. Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Oppose inclusion, the four qualifications of "a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." is not applicable if those qualifications where "obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily". Given the fact that the leaders of this puppet state are citizens of another state, Russia, which is also directly and indirectly using coercive measures and force to impose it on the territory of Ukraine, disqualifies it in terms of the declarative theory of statehood. --Nug (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  9. Oppose inclusion because is a) unrecognised, b) does not meet criteria of statehood.--Yopie (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  10. Oppose inclusion, this is the rebel group not a state. Aotearoa (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  11. Oppose inclusion, let's set a certain period of updating this list (annually, for example) so that we don't have to change something each time some insurgents grab a town or two somewhere in the world. Alæxis¿question? 12:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments[edit]



4. Criteria for inclusion[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. First Proposal Donetsk and Lugansk both received recognition by South Ossetia, but weren't put into the List of states with limited recognition under the "Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members" section. We shouldn't let any sort of recognition allow a state to be included (for example, if Transnistria were to recognize Sealand). However, I think states recognized by those listed under the "Non-UN member states recognised by at least one UN member" section should be included. If Vatican City were to recognize a state, should we really hesitate to include it because Vatican isn't a UN member? Would we dismiss Taiwan's decision to recognize a state despite its own de facto and de jure international recognition? We should at least include states recognized by UN observers (Palestine & Vatican) and/or states who participate in UN specialized agencies (Cook Islands, Kosovo, Niue, & Taiwan). These states are highly respected in the international community and their diplomatic relations shouldn't be ignored. The second criteria should read something like "recognized by one UN member or observer", "recognized by a state in the UN system", or "recognized by a state recognized by at least one UN member". This change would allow for Donetsk and Lugansk to be added. As for the Islamic State, we could use the result of the poll (if in favor) and the many sources talking about its de facto sovereignty. [Soffredo] Yeoman 17:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    Second Proposal The Islamic State has many sources calling it a "de facto state" or something along similar lines. If an entity has so many sources provided, wouldn't it be fair to include it in the List? [Soffredo] Yeoman 01:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Of course, but since this claim isn't actually true the point is irrelevant. TDL (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    See the sources I've provided above. [Soffredo] Yeoman 23:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support But it should be on a different section from the internationally recognized sovereign states perhaps with Soffredo's table above. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support A modification of current criteria to remove specific mention of the declarative convention, but to still require extensive description by academic sources of the entity as a state --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support A modification that would allow the inclusion of any de facto state. 3bdulelah (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose I don't think further tinkering with the criteria is going to be productive. It is a matter of applying the criteria giving due weight to an entity's legal status and its practical-world status, as reported in reliable sources and interpreted through a lens of common sense. And no matter what rules we write, there will always be a borderline case somewhere. I've been watching the debates on this page for eight years and I fear that another rewriting of the recognition criteria is simply not a productive use of the community's limited time and resources. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    What "limited time" do we have? Fixing the criteria could fix many problems, making it so that we'd have to spend less time discussing and arguing on talk pages? [Soffredo] Yeoman 01:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose There's no point to this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - There is nothing wrong with the current criteria, which accurately reflects what sources say on the matter. While the suggestion that perhaps we should include states recognized by UN Observers as well is a reasonable one, it makes the criteria more complicated with little to no benefit. Including second order fringe states, which are themselves only recognized by fringe states, opens the door to all kinds non-states. I fail to see any difference between South Ossetia recognizing DPR/LPR and Transnistria recognizing Sealand, which Soffredo tries to argue above. TDL (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Soffredo seems to imply that adding UN observers or members of UN specialised agencies would mean including Donetsk and Luhansk. It would not (as South Ossetia falls into neither camp). Kahastok talk 07:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    I know it wouldn't include them, I just think we should change the criteria now to avoid pointless arguments in the future. [Soffredo] Yeoman 12:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Frankly, based on the last few months, the way to stop arguments in the future is for you not to start them. Kahastok talk 17:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I already expressed the reasons above, concerning to the Islamic State.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Nothing wrong with the current rules. Once you've got a purported state where no academic, expert or journalist has ever analysed international law and concluded a state exists, and which is recognised by no UN member, you're pretty much by definition including based on a tiny minority POV and thus failing WP:NPOV. Kahastok talk 07:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Current criteria for inclusion should not be changed. --maxval (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Oppose A bad idea which would only create more problems and could lead to us proclaiming sovereign states that not generally recognised. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Read my proposal for changing the criteria. I suggested we change the second part of the criteria, so that states recognized by members/observers in the UN system or states already recognized by at least one UN member could easily be included. For example, we could add the DNR and LNR since South Ossetia recognize both, and South Ossetia is recognized by 4 UN members. [Soffredo] Yeoman 00:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per WP:CREEP. The current criteria is perfectly adequate. --Nug (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, the current criteria are better then proposed ones. Aotearoa (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, no reason to make the criteria more complex. Especially the "recognized by a state recognized by at least one UN member" is counter-productive, opening the field for unforeseen future problems. Would the next (recursive) suggestion be "recognized by a state that is recognized by a state recognized by at least one UN member"? --T*U (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, for the same reasons as the previous editor. Alæxis¿question? 12:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Proposal: Should Niue and the Cook Islands be included, since their statute seems to be similar to some associated states of USA in the Pacific Ocean, and they might eventually satisfy the conditions that are exposed for the inclusion in the List of states with limited recognition?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Niue and the Cook Islands are already on the List. You can find the discussion here. [Soffredo] Yeoman 12:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The Cook Islands and Niue are included on the list because it was demonstrated that each is "recognised as a sovereign state by at least one UN member state". IIRC it was the Netherlands and Japan in the case of the Cook Islands, and China in the case of Niue. It was (and remains) a close call, particularly in the case of Niue. Their similarity in status to the associated states of the US was not the persuasive factor.
The issue in their case is that they are deliberately ambiguous as to whether they are sovereign or not. There is no significant RL dispute as to their status - it is universally accepted that they are whatever they say they are. They're just not clear what that is. Kahastok talk 17:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Then I presumed they were not in this list, since they're not listed in the List of states with limited recognition article.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The emphasis there has always been on active non-recognition, i.e. genuinely refusing to accept that a given claimed state is legally constituted. There are many cases where one state technically does not recognise another solely because the paperwork was never filled in (Foreign relations of Montenegro has a list of 20-odd who haven't got around to recognising Montenegro yet) but by their nature they tend to be nigh-on impossible to source. Kahastok talk 21:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Once a state has joined the UN, dejure they are recognized by all the states that voted for them to be included .XavierGreen (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Not true. Many states that voted for Palestine to be admitted into the UN as an observer have yet to recognize it. [Soffredo] Yeoman 01:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Palestine is not a member of the UN it is an observer, but voting to admit it as an observer state is a dejure recognition of its international personality as a state within international law. Signing a multilateral treaty between states constitutes recognition under international law, thus the states that voted to admit palestine as an observer to the UN have dejure recognized palestine as a state (those that have abstained or voted no have not). Now whether or not de facto they recognize palestine is another matter entirely.XavierGreen (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Then why don't you go ahead and try to include those states over at International recognition of the State of Palestine? The Czech Republic is included, despite not de facto recognizing the State of Palestine anymore. [Soffredo] Yeoman 23:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree you make good points. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ Frank Gardner (8 July 2014). "'Jihadistan': Can Isis militants rule seized territory?". BBC. "Which leaves the prospect of a violent, extremist, well-armed, well-funded and religiously intolerant militia becoming a permanent part of the Middle East landscape, a sort of de facto "jihadistan"." 
  2. ^ Cole Bunzel (January 30, 2014). "The Islamic State of Disunity: Jihadism Divided". Jihadica. "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." 
  3. ^ Jonathan Spyer (February 23, 2014). "Behind the lines: Holding back al-Qaida". The Jerusalem Post. "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." 
  4. ^ "How real is ISIS’ statehood bid in the Middle East?". Al Arabiya. July 2, 2014. "But, they have as good a claim to statehood in the area as either the governments of Iraq or Syria" 
  5. ^ Daniel Byman (13 June 2014). "ISIS is on its way to quasi-statehood with treasure, oil, recruits — and for the first time ever, an address". National Post. "Indeed, unlike Al-Qaeda, ISIS is on its way to controlling a quasi-state, exercising de facto sovereignty over a territory, even if unrecognized by the international community." 
  6. ^ "Iraqi City in Hands of Al-Qaida-Linked Militants". Voice of America. 4 January 2014. Retrieved 16 January 2014. 
  7. ^ Withnall, Adam (29 June 2014). "Iraq crisis: Isis changes name and declares its territories a new Islamic state with 'restoration of caliphate' in Middle East". The Independent. 
  8. ^ STATE OF JIHAD: THE REALITY OF THE ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA
  9. ^ Militants making headway in Iraq and Syria declare creation of formal Islamic state
  10. ^ This Canadian jihadist died in Syria, but his video may recruit more foreign fighters
  11. ^ World's Richest Terror Group Declares Islamic Caliphate In Iraq
  12. ^ Insurgents take control of second major city in Iraq
  13. ^ [http://www.jpost.com/Features/Front-Lines/Behind-the-Lines-An-Islamic-state-is-born-358213 Behind the Lines: An ‘Islamic state’ is born]
  14. ^ New Challenges and New Alliances in the Middle East
  15. ^ Not quiet on the Northern Front
  16. ^ Middle East map being redrawn before our very eyes
  17. ^ STATE OF JIHAD: THE REALITY OF THE ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA
  18. ^ Militants making headway in Iraq and Syria declare creation of formal Islamic state

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


Section of inclusion criteria is original research[edit]

The inclusion criteria originally held that states which satisfy the constitutive theory of statehood were to be included in the list, it has since been changed removing the constitutive theory and instead replacing it with language stating that states recognized by UN members are to be included. The criteria that a state be recognized by a UN state is original research. There are only two theories under modern international law regarding what constitutes a state, the declarative theory and the constitutive theory. As such the criteria should reflect these two theories in order to avoid original research problems.XavierGreen (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I would add that the current criteria are biased in that they exclude two polities which would be considered states under the consitutive theory, Luhansk and Donetsk. Both are recognized by South Ossetia, a state which we have sources that indicate meets both the Declarative and Consitutive theories. As South Ossetia is not a member of the UN, these two polities are currently excluded under the criteria despite meeting one of the two theories of statehood within political science. The current criteria are discriminatory against states which are not members of the United Nations. Thus if Vatican City recognized Luhansk it would not be included but if Tuvalu recognized it, it would be included. The current criteria in regards to including "states recognized by UN members" is baseless within the two standard theories on the issue and are original research and should be changed to reflect the actual constitutive theory.XavierGreen (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
No objective political scientist would claim that Luhansk or Donetsk meet the constitutive theory of statehood. Recognition by a single state doesn't create a de jure state. See for example this which says "Under the so-called "constitutive" theory, a territory is not a state unless it is generally recognized as such by other states". Or this which says "there is no clear explanation of what level of recognition actually establishes de jure statehood within the international community. Abkhazia and South Ossetia, for example, are recognized by four UN member states but are still generally considered de facto states by international bodies." (Note that they don't even consider recognition by Nagorno-Karabakh or Transnistria as relevant to the question.) It certainly can't be argued that ISIS is "generally recognized".
The Islamic State claims to hosts an embassy of the "Emirate of Aleppo", which was recently declared. Since this implies that the Islamic State and the Emirate of Aleppo have established diplomatic relations, by your logic we would be forced to add them to this list if we add ISIS. Does that make sense to you? I agree that the current wording isn't perfect, but your suggestion would lead to even less sensible results. However, I'm open to alternatives. If we want to follow the sources, we should include states which are "generally recognized as such by other states". The difficulty arises in how we define "generally recognized". We could take it to mean recognition by a majority of states? But we still have a problem: majority of which states? Majority of UN members? Then we are right back to your screams of "bias"! Any other ideas on how we could define "generally recognized" in a objective way? TDL (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
We already include states that are recognized by only one other state, Northern Cyprus for example. As for the "Emirate of Aleppo", i dont know what exactly is being refered to as the sources you are citing seem to regard two different things. The Al-Nusra front emirate was not actually declared, various media web sites just jumped the gun and said it was.[[4]].XavierGreen (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Northern Cyprus qualifies under the declarative theory. See for example "The TRNC possess all the necessary qualifications for statehood as enumerated in the Montevideo Convention" or "it may be unrecognized but is a de facto state meeting the international law criteria of statehood."
Regardless, if you want to bring the inclusion criteria in line with sources, we need to make the recognition criteria more stringent rather than more lenient, since under no reasonable reading of the phrase "generally recognized" is 1 recognition sufficient. TDL (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
As I proposed before, I think it would be best to make the second part of the criteria for inclusion be "recognized by a state recognized by at least one UN member". It would be a nice compromise since it at least keeps the UN bias many editors have here and it wouldn't allow for the "Emirate of Aleppo" to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soffredo (talkcontribs)
If you read the link i provided above, the so called "Emirate of Aleppo" doesnt actually exist. And furthermore the UN bias (which if you search the archives, i have noted for years has been a problem) is the very problem that's creating the situation where Luhansk and Donetsk which meet the constitutive theory and yet are excluded from the page.XavierGreen (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
But once again, that isn't what sources actually say. Recognition by a single state isn't sufficient to meet the constitutive theory. See for example this which says "Under the so-called "constitutive" theory, a territory is not a state unless it is generally recognized as such by other states". Recognition by one state certainly isn't general recognition by other states, hence if we follow the definition provided by sources neither Luhansk nor Donetsk meet the constitutive theory. In fact, we have sources that say even South Ossetia doesn't meet the constitutive criteria. So how can recognition from a state which itself doesn't meet the constitutive criteria be constitutive? Do you have any sources to support your claim that recognition by a single states is enough to meet the constitutive theory, in contradiction of this source? You can't complain that the article doesn't reflect how sources define the constitutive theory, and then argue that we should make it disagree even more. TDL (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Didn't we add the  Republic of Crimea because it was recognized by one state? I know you're going to say it's because Russia is a UN member, but that relates back to the "UN bias" mentioned before. [Soffredo] Yeoman 00:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, you added it a week before Crimea even declared independence, let alone was recognized by Russia.
XavierGreen raised an issue, and I'm trying to find a constructive solution to the issue. I fail to see what the relevance of what was done in the past is. TDL (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You said to follow the constitutive theory, it must be generally recognized by states. Then you asked for sources supporting the claim that "recognition by a single states is enough to meet the constitutive theory". We however included Crimea, even though it was only recognized by one state. Why not add the DNR and LNR, which are both recognized by two states? [Soffredo] Yeoman 02:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Your addition of Crimea to this list months ago is certainly not a reliable sources. When I ask for a reliable source, I mean things like academic journals or books on international law where such points are argued. That wikipedia editors chose to do things one way in the past that were not in conformity with sources is irrelevant, since wikipedia is by definition not a reliable source. TDL (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Isn't it obvious I'm not talking about my addition of the Republic of Crimea? I'm talking about when it was added on 17 March 2014, the day it actually declared independence and got recognized by Russia. We kept the state on the List for about a week. Are we now going to say Russia's diplomatic relations aren't reliable? Same with South Ossetia's? [Soffredo] Yeoman 12:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
As best as I can tell, you're trying to make a WP:CIRCULAR argument: "recognition by a single state is enough to meet the constitutive theory of statehood because wikipedia editors listed Crimea even though they were only recognized by one state". But once again, what you or other wikipedia editors did in the past is irrelevant because you and other wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. I could likewise argue that "recognition by a non-UN member state is not enough to meet the constitutive theory of statehood because wikipedia has always excluded states which are recognized by only non-UN members", which would be just as bad an argument. If we want to include states which meet the constitutive theory of statehood, we need to look at what sources say that criteria is, not the past practices of a criteria which you yourself say is flawed. TDL (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I see you undid my edit moving this section to the poll. Does it not seem relevant to you? Why make it a separate section? [Soffredo] Yeoman 23:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
You added Crimea as a sovereign state 5 days before Crimea declared its independence, indeed. I could suggest that you'd add Scotland as a sovereign state today, before it's too late!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk & Luhansk[edit]

Ukraine and pro-Russia rebels sign ceasefire deal

This shows that the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic now have defined borders and the ability to establish relations with other states (each other, Ukraine, previously South Ossetia). This isn't a new proposal to add them since sources have yet to call them sovereign states, this is just a notification for editors who voted against their inclusion in the recent poll. [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 15:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No. It says no such thing. Ukraine has, in no sense, agreed to grant the two regions sovereignty. They have agreed to a ceasefire, but Poroshenko's wording is very clear that the two will still be part of Ukraine. And there are no "defined borders". It is a ceasefire in place from all indications, meaning that Ukraine controls most of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, including Mariupol. --Taivo (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't implying that Ukraine was granting de jure sovereignty. This ceasefire is similar to the War of Transnistria, in which the separatist-held areas became the borders for the unrecognized Transnistria. [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 15:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not even on the level of the Transnistria situation. No details have been published yet and it could very well be a simple ceasefire in place, meaning that the frontlines are the de facto boundaries and not the boundaries of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. But it is far too premature to even begin to think about adding them to this list. --Taivo (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The frontline of Transnistria is the defacto boundry, there are signifigant portions of territory claimed by Transnistria not under its control. The same situation exists in Western Sahara. The situation regarding Somaliland is most akin to the situation in the DPR / LPR. The defacto borders of Somaliland are constantly in flux, as Puntland and federalist forces regularly attack somaliland and vice versa with territory changing hands as a result. The large areas of the western frontier provinces of Somaliland are under the control of Puntland, and Somaliland forces regularly will attack areas under Puntland or local militia control before elections and just as regularly withdraw after those elections have ended.74.105.130.90 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
It is still far too soon to consider this to be anything close to the de facto semi-permanence that we see in Western Sahara, Northern Somaliland, and Transnistria. --Taivo (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying China & Taiwan entries on the table/chart[edit]

I read the entry wordings under China & under Taiwan. These didn't click with me, and seemed to contradict each other in one or more points. Clearly the PRC claims Taiwan, and that is disputed and not recognized by all. But.... And how contiguous mainland China (see its own listing) is not recognized by so many as a country (??) – what is it, several countries? are they recognized? – is beyond me. I was taught that China was a country since I was a boy. Confused. It seems a rewording of these two entries by an editor who really understands it and knows what they are doing, and how to clearly word both of these entries, would help. Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC) (Updating the title) Misty MH (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The China People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Taiwan Republic of China (ROC) both claim Mainland China and the island of Taiwan. As according to the One-China Policy, States must decide what they recognize as the legitimate government of China; 22 states recognize the ROC instead of the PRC, even though it only controls the island of Taiwan. Hope this helps. [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 02:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)