Talk:List of states with limited recognition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured list List of states with limited recognition 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.

Declarative Theory Requirement[edit]

I do not believe that the title of this page accuratly describes its contents. I understand that states such as the Federal States of New Russia and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant do not meet declarative theory, but are they not states with limited recognition? I think this page should include a category for any state with de facto control over an area. Any thoughts? -OBCPO

I agree with you that we need a category for any state with de facto control over an area but why do you think that The Islamic State, Lugansk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic do not meet declarative theory? 3bdulelah (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
<reduce indent> I sympathize with this issue. I think that if academics or journalists (the latter in reliable, substantive pieces addressing the issue, not with passing mention) call something a sovereign state, and treat something like a sovereign state, then we should be comfortable listing it, whether or not this definition is explicitly made in relation to the declarative theory. What's important is that we have proper sources mentioning statehood.
I have no problem with the active conflict exclusion - initial control over land during a war is not the same as having developed territorial control. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Breakaway states in Ukraine[edit]

Lugansk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic satisfy the 'Declarative Theory' actually.

  • 1) They have proper boundaries (Luhansk Oblast and Donetsk Oblast)
  • 2) They have permanent population (for sure)
  • 3) They have their governments (you can take a look at their self titled presidents)
  • 4) They have capacity to enter into relations with other states (they have been recognized by South Ossetia and made truce/ceasefire agreements with Ukraine etc.)
So what is the problem in putting them on that list? elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 21:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem with the 'Declarative Theory' is it is a person's WP:POV Who gives the final say if these countries meet it or not? If it is editors here on Wikipedia then it is a problem. I mean Is someone eyeballing the map and saying "Yup I think this country's boundary looks good"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources that say that it meets the Declarative theory? If not, then it is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. TDL (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh I agree entirely, however any suggestions I make saying this are immediately removed because I can't find an article specifically stating that ISIL, Novorossiya, etc. meet declarative theory. Not that one could find ANY article saying this about ANY country.... Also, it says this at the bottom of the page: "Those areas undergoing current civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession, regardless of temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria (by having control over permanently populated territory or by receiving recognition as state or legitimate government), where the conflict is still in its active phase, the situation is too rapidly changing and no relatively stable rump states have emerged yet." -OBCPO
The active conflict exclusion refers only to competing governments (ie: countries with government succession problems) were two governments hold territory and yet claim to be the same state. Separatist governments (those that do not claim to be the same state as there predecessor are not covered under this exclusion. As for the declarative theory, an objective political scientist would say that the breakaway separatist states meet the declarative theory. Unfortunately, some of the folks around here are rather strict in what they regard as a reliable source, and want a source applying the theory in detail.XavierGreen (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, exactly Xavier! It seems the vast majority of us feel the same way as you and I. I challenge our opposition to find an article that says ANY country meets declarative theory, and that says it as specifically as an article they demand from us. -OBCPO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.159.164 (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@OBCPO1: There are already such sources in the article, for example:
Here is another:
Hello, this is OBCPO. I am not sure what you are trying to prove with these. I never said anything about Somaliland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.159.164 (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@OBCPO1: You asked me to "find an article that says ANY country meets declarative theory". These are two sources which say that Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland meet the declarative theory. TDL (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Danlaycock: Right, thank you. I was curious if such sources existed, as I could not find any reliable ones. Sorry for not reading the sources when you first posted them. Thanks! OBCPO1 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
XavierGreen's comments are rather disingenuous. No one has even provided a single source, reliable or otherwise, that so much as mentions the declarative theory and any of the proposed entities in the same article. To suggest that mentioning the two words in the same article is "applying the theory in detail" is rather laughable. All that has been provided is editors personal hypotheses on what "an objective political scientist would say". Such opinions are not acceptable in a serious encyclopedia because wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. If you think this claim is true, then show me an "an objective political scientist" who says such things and I will support inclusion. But postulating it is true, without any evidence to back it up, is pure speculation.
And no, as explained above the active conflict exclusion does not only apply to cases of succession. That is why there is an "and" in the sentence. TDL (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
They are not at all disingenuous, you and one or two others want detailed analysis of the theory applied to each entity. If an objective political scientist applied the theory, they would each be considered states as the elements of the theory are present in each case. Anyone can do a google search and find dozens upon dozens of articles calling the entities in questions states.
As for the "active conflict" rule, the word "and" limits the scope of the rule to government succession problems (ie: where two entities claim to be the same state) because the word "other" follows it. Thus when read like a statute or rule (which it is in essence on governing the page) applying the principle of noscitur a sociis (a word is known by the company it keeps) the rule is clearly limited to government succession problems and does not include break away states, which are an entire beast in themselves. The rule would not apply to the entities in question, unless you want to argue that Donetsk and or Luhansk claim to be the legitimate government of all Ukraine which would be a laughable assertion. Furthermore, if you look back at the relevant archives on the list of sovereign states page, one would clearly see that the purpose of the rule was to exclude entities with government succession problems that temporarily met the criteria (ie specifically the Libyan Transitional Authority) there is no discussion whatsoever of the rule being applied to separatist states that claim to be separate legal entities from their former "mother countries". Any suggestion to the contrary is entirely disingenuous on your part and misrepresentative of the facts at hand.XavierGreen (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually what I want you to do is the opposite of "detailed analysis of the theory applied to each entity". I don't want you to do any analysis of the theory at all.
If there were sources that said, Donetsk and Luhansk are states according to the Montevideo Convention/declarative theory of statehood, that would go a very long way toward demonstrating that they belong on this list. It isn't a particularly high standard. And yet nobody has ever found any source that comes even close to it.
If, as you claim, "[i]f an objective political scientist applied the theory, they would each be considered states as the elements of the theory are present in each case", it should be trivial to find one. We as Wikipedia editors are patently not qualified to apply the theory per WP:NOR. It is not Wikipedia's job to interpret what "objective" fact is in a realm such as political science.
I do not propose to discuss the "active conflict" rule, beyond noting that I do not accept your interpretation, because it makes no difference in this case as there is no alignment with the inclusion criteria. Kahastok talk 16:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Kahastok, this is OBCPO. Please find a source saying ANY state on this page satisfies the declarative theory of statehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.159.164 (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
You've already had two from TDL above, and between them they cover every state on this list that needs such a source (because all the others are recognised by at least one UN member state). Kahastok talk 22:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Template:Ping:Kahastok Yes, sorry about the confusion. OBCPO1 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
So we just have to wait for an article or a book to be written about Donetsk and Lugansk PP's foreign or interior relationships, right!? Those two actually meet the criteria but you just want a sentence that includes 'Donetsk and Lugansk PP meets the Declarative Theory' from a scientist, researcher or a reporter. Mate, its time to gather on common grounds now or things will be like 'the story of the two goats'. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 22:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In regards to Kahastok's above statement, it is not trivial to find a scholarly political science article regarding anything that has happened recently. Rather in fact it is quite an undertaking to get something published in a journal. For virtually any journal of note, one first has to get the article peer reviewed at a conference which are not all that frequent (at most quarterly per journal). And it makes a ton of difference as to the interpretation of the "active conflict" rule. If i didnt say something, its very likely that 6 months from now when it potentially does matter one of you would have gone back and said "oh there was consensus that this was the interpretation because no one objected". I've seen some of you do it before, and i'm making it clear that there is no consensus hear for a "new" interpretation of the "active conflict" rule so that it excludes separatist states. Its an entirely bogus reading that has no basis in the original conversation that lead to its implementation in the first place.XavierGreen (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
XavierGreen, you are either being extremely disingenuous or you've completely failed to grasp the points being made to you over and over again. As Kahastok explained, no one has ever asked for "detailed analysis of the theory applied to each entity". A single sentence which says something along the lines of "Donetsk meets the declarative theory of statehood" would be perfectly acceptable. If you think 7 words constitutes a "detailed analysis" then you have a very strange understanding of the words "detailed" and "analysis" indeed. I don't think any reasonable person would think 7 words constitutes a "detailed analysis". And who said anything about only scholarly political science articles being acceptable? Certainly not Kahastok nor I. If some scholar made the statement in an interview to a newspaper, that would be more than fine in my opinion. Newspapers come out daily.
Basically, your argument comes down to that it's too hard to find a source so we should just ignore WP:V and WP:OR and try to guess what RS would say if they did exist. Clearly that isn't acceptable in a serious encyclopedia. If it takes 6 months for sources to evaluate the situation, then we'll just have to wait. There is WP:NODEADLINE.
As for your "unique" interpretation of the "active conflict" rule, you have assumed (without any basis) that "government succession" only applies to the succession of sovereign governments. There is, of course, a "government succession" problem from the Donetsk Oblast to the PRD. TDL (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there anyone opposed to making a new category on this page listing unrecognized de facto states that hold territory? I would hate to spend a lot of time making a new section to have it deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBCPO1 (talkcontribs) 01:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
OBCPO1, There is a page called List of active separatist movements in Europe mate, no need for that. TDL, you wrote well. I agree with you.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 08:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with XavierGreen on this one. Demanding explicit reference to the Montevideo criteria seems to me like an unreasonable demand. I think secondary sources referring to any kind of de facto statehood should be enough. If I think about WP:COMMONSENSE and what readers will expect from this article, I feel like states with clear de facto control (like the Islamic State and MAYBE Donetsk or Luhansk) should be included. Let me make clear that I HIGHLY RESPECT TDL, CMD, and Kahastok (etc.) for maintaining a voice of reason in this article and others; but how many voices do we need before we can consider there no longer to be a consensus on the status quo? GeoEvan (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed as well, if sources are reporting about this widespread how many more opinions do we need? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
But the point is that it's a question of scope. By definition this article isn't a list of entities with "de facto statehood". It is a list of entities which are considered to be a sovereign state under international law. If we want to use a technical term like "sovereign state" we need to be sure we follow the academic consensus on it's usage. Rebel groups which have tenuous control over territory, but which don't have a legitimate claim to statehood under international law, are out of scope of this article. The only way to draw a line between such groups and sovereign states is to insist on sources which demonstrate a legitimate claim to statehood under international law.
If we were to include every place with "de facto statehood", we'd need to add numerous rebel groups including Al-Shabaab [1], Kurdistan [2][3][4], Houthis, Kachin Independence Army, etc., etc., etc., all of which control territory. Every time some rebel so much as takes control of a building, they'd need to be added. List of rebel groups that control territory was created for just such entities until such time as reliable sources describe them as being a sovereign state under international law. TDL (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The key difference is that the entities you have listed (ie the houthis, KIA, al shabab, ect) have not declared independence and thus cannot meet the declarative theory while Donetsk and Luhansk clearly have declared independence and meet criteria set forth under the theory.XavierGreen (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, Donetsk and Lugansk have both received limited recognition and should be listed under the "Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members" section (NKR & PMR). [Soffredo] Yeoman 15:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with XavierGreen. This list would best serve readers by listing entities with de facto statehood PLUS declarations of sovereignty separate from existing states. Insisting on a strict legal interpretation seems like overkill, especially when no one is suggesting we restrict our sources to formal legal opinions. GeoEvan (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Than we should add every entity which has declared independence, such as Principality of Hutt River, Sealand, Carpathian Ruthenia (independence declared by 100 delegates to the Congress Of Carpathian Ruthenians in 2008), Moskitia, Republic of Lakotah and many more. Aotearoa (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Except the entities you've listed are generally considered micronations or don't have any sovereignty. [Soffredo] Yeoman 19:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Based on the evidence, the same would apply to Luhansk and Donetsk. Kahastok talk 20:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly NO CONSENSUS here. Just stating the obvious, and I too dispute exclusion of the 3 states with ongoing conflicts. Palestine too has ongoing coflict/intifada/civil war, and should not be excluded. This is just one side pushing their POV on a list of UNRECOGNISED entities. BritishProudImperialMrn (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

North Sentinel Island[edit]

Hi guys,

I think we should add North Sentinel as an unrecognised de facto state to this list. May be it's a very "primitive model of state", but they fulfil all points in the declarative theory. We should not forget that they have full control (or sovereignty) in both their internal affairs and territory. Yes India, if wanted, could easily invade that area. But that island has never been invaded in history. The same people have been living there for millennia, with their own administration, their own warriors guarding the borders etc. Let me elaborate:

  1. They do have a defined territory (and have been having for millennia).
    • They shoot arrows at those closing to their border, be it from land, water or air. In 2006, two fishermen were killed with arrows for fishing in their territory.
  2. They do have a permanent population.
  3. They have a sort of government - a government is what governs the people, right? - even if we don't know their exact way of governing...probably clan leaders' council or something.
  4. They have obviously and naturally have a capacity to enter into relations with other states, even though they choose not to.

I am no expert on socio-politics. However, much-ever primitive, the locals of the North Sentinel Island seemed to me quite independent. They have an army (or group of warriors), while Andorra doesn't. They have a permanent population, while it's still debated whether ISIS has one. It has been already acknowledged that North Sentinel is de facto autonomous. So if the difference between autonomous and full sovereignty is having full control over territory, they definitely have it. So can we mention them in the article? What are your opinions guys? Thank you --Universal Life (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Two points:
  1. The relevant factor is not whether we think they meet the criteria, but whether reliable sources think they meet the criteria.
  2. The Sentinelese are generally considered an uncontacted people, thus explicitly excluded under the excluded entities section of the article. But we do have an article specifically on Uncontacted peoples. Kahastok talk 16:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Kahastok. About the criteria (the 4 criteria mentioned in the article). It's not opinion but fact that they meet the first two. About the last two criteria, I don't know what reliable sources say, although we could look up and search for it. It's quite possible though that many experts might not have paid attention to the sovereignty of a few hundred "primitive" people...although even if it is opined by reliable sources to be a state, may be we could mention it in the article as Mr. X, Y considers North Sentinel to be a state.
Secondly, I've read the excluded entities section you linked - and thank you for that as well - which brought up few questions to my mind. First of all, there are five things mentioned in that section.
  1. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta
  2. Uncontacted peoples
  3. Micronations
  4. Areas undergoing civil wars
  5. Separatist movements and governments in exile
  • I think I understand why the first one is not included but mentioned in that relevant section...It's because they don't have any territory and no declaration of state, but they have full diplomatic relationships with many countries. Is it so?
  • For the second one it says that they exercise varying degrees of de facto sovereignty over the areas under their control. When I read uncontacted people and look more into it, I see that, most of them (perhaps almost all of them) have lost the territorial control that they once had. Petroleum companies, mining companies have entered their lands, contact have been made with almost all of them, roads have been constructed through their forests etc. If I'm not wrong, only the Sentinelese have remained completely out of contact. Therefore, they have full sovereignty over their territories and they deserve at least a mention in the excluded section of the article. (It's not my opinion, it's just obvious. If anyone goes and reads about all uncontacted people and the Sentinelese, any neutral person could see this difference. Some article even was saying that it's so because of India's laws and protection...And unlike micronations, the Sentinelese are not under the law of their surrounding country.)
  • About the fourth one (civil wars), is that the reason the IS is excluded? Or is it because of not being sure whether they have a permanent population?
  • And lastly, the fifth one brought two questions to my mind. 1) Are governments in exile accepted as states, if they have full diplomatic relationships with many governments (such as for European countries, during the Second WW). 2) (more importantly) Why "states" that don't have de facto sovereignty are sometimes accepted as states? I mean doesn't de jure comes naturally after de facto? How can we speak of a state, when in fact, there is none to begin with? One example comes to my mind is Palestinian territories - and no, it's not a politically charged question, I'm just trying to understand better the concept of state - There might be more such examples.
Sorry for the wall of text and so many questions. I'm creating a list myself here. Since my childhood, I liked to make list of countries and memorise their capitals :) Although, they keep changing.. So, I want to keep one flexible list, that I can change, as realities change :) Thanks in advance, Cheerfully --Universal Life (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel like it can't be listed for this very simple issue: We don't know if there is a single North Sentinel state. For all we know there could be multiple factions. Imagine if this were 1492 and Europeans just discovered there was this big land over here with people; would it be kosher for them to say "There is this unrecognized country of "America""? No. --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You made the point very clear. Thank you Golbez.
And about the other questions, especially of why an entity is accepted as a de jure state, when de facto doesn't have sovereignty...if anyone could inform me, I would be very happy. --Universal Life (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. I think I'd start by pointing out that the question of whether an entity is a "state" or not is quite clear in most cases (e.g. Germany, Isle of Wight), but the edges are quite blurred and require a judgement call. The question of whether a "state" exists in international law is a Big Deal, and as Wikipedia editors, policies like WP:NOR mean that we are not in a position to make those judgement calls.

That means that, even if some of us think a case is obvious according to the declarative theory, we have to wait until a reliable source reports that a state exists according to the declarative theory. Can we prove territory, population, government to our satisfaction in many cases? Sure, but that counts for nothing if we're the only ones who think that. Wikipedia shouldn't be the first source to suggest that a state exists, and shouldn't find itself in a small minority. That - the fact that there is no source that suggests that a state exists - would be the formal reason for excluding North Sentinel Island as well as ISIS and others.

The answers to your questions can be broadly be summarised by saying that our aim is to create a list that does not radically differ from those that any other neutral observer would make. Basically, all of the five points are saying the same thing - we don't include "states" that haven't been judged as such by other sources.

So:

  • SMOM considers itself to be - and is recognised as - a sovereign non-state, which pretty much rules it out.
  • Uncontacted peoples - as Golbez says, by definition we don't really know enough about them to comment. But they are generally treated as a separate phenomenon from sovereign states.
  • Though micronations often try to make themselves look like states and frequently make self-aggrandising claims about recognition and the declarative theory, academically they are treated as a separate phenomenon and you won't generally find serious reliable sources accepting those claims. Clearly, uncontacted peoples are themselves different from micronations.
  • In the case of civil wars and cases of state succession, this one was written for an old criterion and not updated (I've just done it). You frequently get situations where something resembling a state might exist during a civil war or revolution. Libya is the archetypal example - for several months we had both a Libya-Tripoli and a Libya-Benghazi, de facto distinct and independent of one another but both claiming to be government of the same Libya - but one might also cite e.g. the current situation in eastern Ukraine. Because we want a reasonably stable list, we wait until there's a reasonably stable resolution.
  • The final case, again it's rather written for an older version of the criteria (I've just updated it). Remember that this is a list of states, not of governments. A government-in-exile is not a state, even it is recognised as a legitimate government of a state. As to the Palestinians, I find your example flawed as there are areas of Palestinian de facto sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza. Kahastok talk 09:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Kahastok for your nice reply and infos you gave. I also read the change you made and it makes more sense now. I also understand your point when you say as Wikipedia editors, policies like WP:NOR mean that we are not in a position to make those judgement calls, we have to wait until a reliable source reports that a state exists according to the declarative theory and Wikipedia shouldn't be the first source to suggest that a state exists, and shouldn't find itself in a small minority. However I have a sincere question. I myself, as NOT being a sociopolitician neither being a social scientist (I'm actually a biologist) have no clue whether there actually are people/academicians that sit down and write a scientific paper about the ontology of underrecognised or unrecognised entities, I mean analysing if they are indeed a state or not according to this or that concept. I would very much like to know if such papers or academicians exist indeed. If not, what are the reliable sources? Politicans or politics of different countries shouldn't be, as today unfortunately politics itself is an expression of "vested interests". And Wikipedia, with the principle of NPOV-Neutrality, should not be the voice of this or that vested interest. If I come to learn that such papers/academicians exist indeed and that even few of them are independant (not funded by politicians) I would be quite happy.

There is a second and last thing I don't understand. How come a state is a state, when they don't have their own army or when they don't control their own borders. Andorra doesn't have its own army. Their citizens pay taxes to both Spain (some religious dude in Cataluña) and France! I don't understand their independance. You said that there are areas of West Bank and Gaza with de facto sovereignty. However, it's not correct. What you mentioned is in the West Bank and what they have is autonomy, because they are demilitarised, they don't have control over any border. They have police force co-funded by Israel and the USA but that's it. Gaza de facto neither controls their territory, not the land borders, nor the sea (it didn't neither prior to the current war). Anyway, even though Andorra and Palestine's situations are far away from each other - and I don't suggest they should be excluded - I'm just trying to understand, how come a state without an army (eg. Andorra) and/or a state without actual control over their territory (eg. PA) is considered an "independent state", worthy of the name. Thanks --Universal Life (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two competing theories of statehood, discussed at Sovereign state. They are the constitutive theory (i.e. statehood is based on recogntion) and the declarative theory (i.e. statehood is based on certain criteria independent of recognition). Our list is based on either-or. Andorra is universally recognised as a sovereign state, and Palestine is widely recognised as one. That's enough for us on its own and we don't need to make the case in terms of the declarative theory.
Having military forces has never been a prerequisite to statehood. Liechtenstein abolished their forces after they famously (though possibly apocryphally) came back from campaign with more soldiers than they'd left with, having made a friend. The British and Icelanders even managed to fight a minor war over their maritime borders in the 1970s despite the Icelanders not having any military forces.
The reliable sources who most often deal with these issues are international lawyers and political scientists - whether working for governments or in academia. The international lawyers and the politicians tend to be most interested in the blurry edges, rather than the obvious cases. Kahastok talk 22:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wa State[edit]

Follow Wikipedians, should we add Wa State to the list? To me, they have fulfilled every category and I can't see any reason not to include them in the list. What are your opinions? 125.168.97.231 (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I've looked briefly, and I see no evidence that it meets the inclusion criteria for this list (i.e. sourcing that says that it meets the standard of the declarative theory of statehood, or evidence of formal diplomatic recognition by a UN member state). Kahastok talk 10:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The infobox for that article claims they declared independence in 1989 but the text doesn't support that, nor is there a source supporting it. --Golbez (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Bias[edit]

This list should contain also the states with effective control and ongoing conflict. The point of the list is to be informative. Heavy bias against the 3 new states with clear notability are constantly apparently removed by editors with obvious agenda. There is no reason to deny the existence of these states as entities with ongoing conflict - this is list of UNRECOGNIZED states, and effective control on ground in conflicts that takes thousands of lives (be it Ukraine or Northern Iraq/Syria) are notable cases of unrecognized (or partially recognized, in the case of Donbass) states/entities. We should not deny the elephant in the room, i.e. the most significant conflicts of the day, by taking sides and denying existence of these states even at UNRECOGNIZED list page with purpose to inform about existence of these problematic regions (and all are problematic, but these three, and especially so, are the ones where conflict is most serious). BritishProudImperialMrn (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Unrecognised means unrecognised. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)