This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Should we include Hamas on this list, as an entity that controls territory and claims statehood (as the Palestinian state)? After all, its a case similar to the ROC/PRC, where both Fatah and Hamas control territory, populations, etc. but one is recognized as the legitimate government of Palestine, while the other is not... --HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
We shouldn't use one case to inform us about another case - we should use sources to drive us. The ROC/PRC situation, as is now, was only really established after 50 years of the two governments being variously recognised as the one legitimate government China by different bodies. If we have reliable, verifiable and independent sources describing Hamas/Gaza Strip as a separate state then we can go for it. However, as far as I know, Hamas/Gaza Strip does not claim to be a state, and no-one describes them as such. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Have any sources been found since our last discussion that claim that it either "satisfy the declarative theory of statehood, or be recognised as a state by at least one UN member state"? TDL (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The opening sentence of the article is:
"The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Arabic: الدولة الاسلامية في العراق والشام ad-Dawla al-Islāmiyya fi al-'Irāq wa-sh-Shām), abbreviated as ISIS, is an unrecognized self-proclaimed sovereign state. Before declaring its independence on April 8, 2013, the state acted as an armed resistance group active in Iraq and Syria."
Yes, because you just added that AFTER starting this thread. None of those sources mention anything about either recognition or the declarative theory of statehood. Things like "its belief that it is a sovereign state", "political designs as the reborn Islamic state", and "ISIS’s unique claim to statehood" don't justify inclusion based on the criteria. TDL (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. In terms of sourcing, nothing has changed since last time. Kahastoktalk 12:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Soffredo is changing Gallery of sovereign state flags, which states in its first sentence it is based on the sovereign states article, with the rationale that the ISIS page says so. CMD (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually Soffredo went and changed the Sovereign states article too. My implication that the bypassing of the talkpage was selective was mistaken. CMD (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The National Post of Canada recently had an article in which it stated that ISIS controls territory 'a statelet' and considers itself to be soveriegn. []XavierGreen (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
As for the language in the ISIS article itself, that was a result of the merger between the ISIL splinter page. The AFD result speficically stated that any information regarding ISIL as a state was to be merged / added onto the ISIS page since they were in fact the same entity.XavierGreen (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
^Aaron Y. Zelin (February 4, 2014). "Al-Qaeda Disaffiliates with the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham". The Washington Institute. Retrieved February 7, 2014. "Like the GIA, ISIS's overuse of takfir (pronouncing a Muslim an infidel) and subsequent liquidation of enemies by any means has been a source of intense grievance from other Syrian rebel groups, as has ISIS's unwillingness to submit to an independent sharia court and its belief that it is a sovereign state in liberated territory."
^Cole Bunzel (January 30, 2014). "The Islamic State of Disunity: Jihadism Divided". Jihadica. Retrieved February 7, 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."
For clarity and consistency the four map captions: Not recognised by any state; Recognised by UN non-members only; UN non-members recognised by at least one member; UN member states, not recognised by at least one other member
should, I think, be made identical to the subheadings (shown below) under the main heading "Present geopolitical entities by level of recognition" discussing these entities. This is especially true for the last of the four, which uses a negative phrase that is ambiguous, inasmuch as it can be read as meaning "UN member state recognized by no other state," which really isn't possible, but, nevertheless, might be so interpreted by some readers, at least momentarily.
Non-UN member states not recognised by any state; Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members; Non-UN member states recognised by at least one UN member; Partially unrecognised UN member states.
If, after a suitable time interval, no objection to my recommendation is made, I will make these changes, and also, for improved clarity, remove the hyphens between "non" and "UN." Wikifan2744 (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I removed this last week when it was added in a commented form; it seems to be a kosher addition now. The news of the declaration, assuming things are being translated properly, seems accurate. --Golbez (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
But they've also said, even if Yanukovich returned to power in Ukraine, they would not be joining. They seem to be going it alone. They declared independence to give the referendum - which is apparently to join Russia, rather than for independence? - more legitimacy. Either way, they seem to be declaring that they are no longer part of Ukraine. As for the 'declarative theory of statehood', the mere fact that they can hold such a referendum without the Kyiv government interfering seems pretty strong. --Golbez (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that one would need to show "sources to support the claim that they "satisfy the declarative theory of statehood". The Crimea is already a state, even without a declaration of independence it meets the critera to be a non independent republic which is well sourced. All that is needed here is proof that they declared independence. With a declaration, the case for inclusion would be prima facia.184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
@Golbez: Yes, a few parliamentarians have said that, but the declaration says nothing of the sort so that's merely their personal opinion. The wording of the declaration is really quite clear: only if the people vote to join Russia will they declare independence. And yes, one could argue that them holding the election is proof of control, but we need sources to draw that conclusion, not us. One could also argue that they are being occupied by Russia and hence Crimea don't really have sovereign control.
@IP:You might think it is prima facia that they meet the declarative theory of statehood, but that is merely your opinion and hence WP:OR. Every claim made on wikipedia needs to be sourced. TDL (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
We have reliable sources confirming Crimea's declaration, you may disagree with it but it should stay on the page per the sources at hand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I understand people are excited and want to be the first to update the list, but accuracy is more important than speed. This is a serious encyclopedia, not a blog. We shouldn't be trying to predict the future. Scotland has also said that they will declare independence if the public votes in favour of it later this year, shall we add them now as well because they have announced their possible future independence? TDL (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Have you read all of the sources listed above? CNN has even said that Crimea has declared it's independence while some sources are saying different things it is not a majority of them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
From what I've read, I think TDL is right in that the declaration does not imply an immediate seccession, but rather that the Crimean assembly has given the people of Crimea the right to choose in the future whether to remain in Ukraine, join Russia, or become independent. This seems more like a declaration of rights than an instrument for forming a separate state like those of Abkhazia, Transnistria, etc. While not identical, this may be situation like Tatarstan, which declared itself sovereign (and this is still in force) while remaining within the Russian state. Ladril (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
My lord, now people are using this as evidence of recognition of Crimea by Russia? All it says is that Russia considers that the declaration is consistent with international law. That is an entirely different statement than saying Russia recognizes Crimea's independence. TDL (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I think one of the sources presented on this page may have contained a misinterpretation of the content of the declaration. This is what may be causing confusion. Ladril (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
You can see the full content of the original Russian language declaration here (The site is a bit flakey so here is an archived version). The relevant passage is "В случае если в результате предстоящего 16 марта 2014 года прямого волеизъявления народов Крыма будет принято решение о вхождении Крыма, включая Автономную Республику Крым и город Севастополь, в состав России, Крым после референдума будет объявлен независимым и суверенным государством с республиканской формой правления."
Also, please do not add the entry again until a consensus is reached on this talk page. Traditionally, all editors have been expected to adhere to this standard of conduct. Ladril (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
My reading is also that they haven't declared independence (yet?). Let's see what the future holds, but not reasons to be ahead of it on wikipedia.. L.tak (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Should we request page protection without Crimea until things quiet down? Ladril (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but this is just one page out of many. A page with two separate Crimean entries now, I might add. CMD (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and requested full protection. Ladril (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
FWIW I agree that it does not belong. Suggest that those that want it come here with sources rather than repeatedly readding it. Kahastoktalk 21:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we should not add Crimea at this time and should wait for further developments. The map needs to be changed back as well. Crimea is still highlighted in red. Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone recently put it back into the map. I propose we add Scotland and Catalonia too; after all, they're just as "independent" as the nonexistant Republic of Crimea. Kiralexis (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)