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.
I think Xavier might be right on this one. They have a declaration of independence, this is not in dispute. And now the organization that declared independence claims to control substantual territory ("Asked if what he meant by “fallen” was that Philippine authorities no longer had control over the areas, Fontanilla answered yes."), though so far as I can tell this has not been corroborated by Filipino authorities. And while it doesn't say specifically Bangsamoro controls that territory, it's the group that declared independence as Bangsamoro, so ... And if it's seven villages, that's more substantial than some crackpot separationists in a compound who wouldn't warrant inclusion.
I dunno, there could be gaps (lack of corroboration from Filipino authorities, the size of the occupied area) so let's discuss. But to me it seems like at present it could be a valid inclusion. --Golbez (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
There does seem to be a good case for their inclusion, though I agree that we really need neutral WP:SECONDARY sources that confirm their control of territory. Anyone can claim to control territory. TDL (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
There are lots of news reports out that they took control of 7 villages. One of them was retaken by the Philippine government this morning, but the rest are still in their hands. They may control other populated places on mindano but i cant find any source that says they control anything besides the 6 they currently have near Zamborga. Ill post some other sources shortly.XavierGreen (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Per the previous precedent of adding Azawad to this list even though it was at war and had unclear borders for all of its existence, I support adding this movement, if it still controls territory. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Per the Battle of Zamboanga City page, the Phillipino government has regained "80 percent of the areas that had been occupied by the rebels". While this means that the rebels still control territory, it means that this movement is likely to be short lived. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 06:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Ye..., MNLF control one village, after two hours they move to another one, and so on. Formally they control, but not particular area, and different areas for short period. Lake partisans – today they are in one place (and of course control this place), tomorrow in the second one... 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed and even if they has control of a village or two nobody recognizes them and they have zero diplomatic relations with anyone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Generally this list follows the lead of List of sovereign states, as I don't think it makes much sense to have different criteria for the two, but I don't mind discussing it here. (I restored the sources because I presume there is no opposition to this.)
The rational for specifying "UN state" rather than just "sovereign state" is that the current wording could lead to an undesirable outcome. Keep in mind that this clause is only applicable to states which don't meet the DTS (and hence qualify under part 1 of the criteria). Do we really want to include states which don't meet the DTS and are only recognized by unrecognized states?
If we define "sovereign state" to be any state that is recognized, then if say Somaliland recognizes Bangsamoro, and Bangsamoro recognizes the Republic of Lakotah, and Lakotah recognizes the Principality of Sealand, and Sealand recognizes the Conch Republic, under the current wording we'd need to include all of these states. I'm not sure that's really what we want. Being recognized by a fringe state doesn't really add much to the legitimacy of a state. TDL (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough; sorry if I over-reacted but I just wanted to flag it up before making the change, and your argument is persuasive --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with being cautious. I'll leave the discussion open for a few more days, and if no one objects restore the changes. TDL (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Since the 2011 war, in Lybia there is a de facto independence of Cyrenaica (with capital in Benghazi). It is called "semi-autonomous region", and however, it is completely independent, as Tripoli has not any influence in the politics of Benghazi. Lybia is right now a failed state, similar to Somalia. Its people is living in a chaotic state.
Last 27th of september, the region of Fezzan declared its autonomy from Tripoli . Misrata is a kind of city-state. Nafusa mountains(Berber people) is another de facto autonomous area. And many militias control other territories without the interference of any kind of central government.