Talk:List of states with limited recognition

Input and opinions requested regarding visa requirement pages

On 23 November I sent User:XLR8TION this message: "Why are you removing states with limited recognition? I didn't want to undo your edits without asking you first. Outback the koala (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)"

And he replied, "First of all DO NOT WRITE on my talk page. Discuss all topics on the article talk page. Second, I have removed thes pariah states. Foreign law dictates that the use of a national passport for unrecognized states can have serious repercussion for passport holder when returning home or transferring through third countries. Pariah states such as South Ossetia and Abzhakia do not have a consular network and hence are not able to issue visas. They are more puppet pseudo-states and their recognition by 7 nations (mainly economic wards of Russia) is simply economically-related than diplomatically. These states are not recognized by IATA, Interpol, and other international travel/law organizations the their visas and passports are not considered legal travel documents. Therefore, they have been removed from article until recognition is recognized. --XLR8TION (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)"

I am moving here per his suggestion to discuss all topics on an article talk page. Diffs are, [1], [2], [3] and several on Visa requirements for United States citizens. Should these states be included? I beleive they should because they de facto control their own territory and all these citizens could possibly travel there. Outback the koala (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If citizens from those countries can get visas to the states with limited recognition, then I don't see why they shouldn't be included (I don't doubt they could get a Kosovan visa, but perhaps they're unable to get an Abkhazian visa?). As breakaway states have control over some territory, I doubt a visa to the claimant country will mean much. I note Kosovo and Taiwan are on all those pages without apparent dispute. CMD (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I would also agree that they should be included, since it's a factual reality and not having to be based on visa or passport requirements. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be inclinded to agree. Any individual could make contact with one of these states as well. I had to undo this user again, here after they reverted me, writing "Please stop adding these fantasy countries!". @Chip If one was to travel to one of these states, and the state in question takes their sovereignty seriously, then they would be inclinded to have visa systems and enforce them on territory they de facto control. It would be a question traveling there. Outback the koala (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If the information is reasonably sourced I agree it should be in indeed. We are not listing sovereign states here, but those territories (for lack of a better word) that de facto have to be dealt with to get you in. Being fully recognized is by no means a requirement (we have also Aruba et al, simply because they are outside schengen and have their own system...) L.tak (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I was more wondering if, for example, a US passport could legally have an Abkhazian visa, the same way that many Islamic countries' passports can't be used to get into Israel. CMD (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Good question. Those passports have explicitly "valid for all countries except Israel" in their passport. I guess (but don't know) that the US passport does not have that text... L.tak (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Please do not add pariah fantasy nations such as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia or Nagorno to this list. Foreign law dictates that the use of a national passport for unrecognized states can have serious repercussion for passport holder when returning home or transferring through third countries. Pariah states such as South Ossetia and Abzhakia do not have a consular network and hence are not able to issue visas. They are more puppet pseudo-states and their recognition by 7 nations (mainly economic wards of Russia) is simply economically-related than diplomatically. These states are not recognized by IATA, Interpol, and other international travel/law organizations the their visas and passports are not considered legal travel documents. Therefore, they have been removed from article until recognition is recognized.

Take example South Ossetia. Most South Ossetians have Russian passports for foreign travel as traveling on a fantasy passport issued by that country won't get them too far. For example, traveling to Nicaragua (one of 7 out of the 193 nations on this planet that recognized them) will require them to travel to Russia and from there they will have to find a direct flight to Venezuela in order to connect to Managua. The issuance of Fantasy passports for non-sovereign states such as the recent snafu that involved a Native American tribe who tried to travel to the UK for an international match (please see article Iroquois passport) clearly shows that sovereign nations who do NOT recognize pariah states take the usage of a fantasy passport or other fictional travel documents such a visa issued by a rogue state lightly. The U.S. State Department issues U.S. Passports and they DO NOT RECOGNIZE these nations. There borders are not changed, there has been no third party contact with the U.S., nor will the U.S. issue a visa to the passport of any citizen of a rogue pariah state to their passport. Wikipedia is to be accurate and the inclusion of these states is COMPLETELY MISLEADING. Passports from rogue states can result in confiscation by a foreign government and even arrest (passport misuses, regardless if the passport is altered, fraudulent, or issued by a non-recognized state is a serious crime and can result in prosecution). While a U.S. passport is valid worldwide a passport from these states is not. The article applies to U.S. citizens and their visa requirements, but the same can be said for all other nations. Rule here is one nation does not recognize the sovereignity or authority (such as Palestine) of a foreign government, that nation SHOULD NOT be added to this list. Therefore is Russia recognizes South Ossetia go ahead and add them to the article on Visa requirements for Russia citizens. Sames goes for Northern Cyprus - add them to the article on Visa Requirements for Turkish citizens and vice versa, but do NOT add them to the article of a nation that does NOT recognized the other. What's next adding Israel to the article on visa requirements for the citizens of the 32 nations that do not recognize Israel???

Please stop adding these fake countries to this list. As an American citizen, I find it insulting to see writers mislead U.S. citizens who read Wikipedia. All writers should aim to lead but not mislead. --XLR8TION (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry you are insulted. If the US state does terrible things to its citizens that dare to have visas of non-fully recognized countries, then that should be added. Fact remains (if it is a fact at least....) that the organizations/authorities in those "states" will define what is required to get into their entity and that's what's described in this article. So my suggestion: let's add a note or paragraph with reliably sourced info regarding what the US does when visa are added; but let's not remove it, as that would can be misleading as well... L.tak (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A U.S Passport REMAINS the property of the U.S. State Department. The State Department sets the rules for the use of THEIR document. They don't recognize state, passport misuse is a criminal offense. These fantasy countries do not belong on a list informing U.S. citizens or nationals that their passports are valid for travel to pariah fantasy countries. --XLR8TION (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If US citizens wish to be informed on what their government thinks, they should consult a government source. We are dealing here with a wikipedia article for the general public, which should be informative. Whatever you call them, these "fantasy countries" have a certain ... presence and de facto control their borders and thus have some relevance... In summary: we are not following a US State Point of View here, simply because that's only one way of looking at it. I was serious in my suggestion: do we have sources on how the US treats people with Abkhasian "phantasy" visa in their passports (and, but that's beside the point: does that also hold for my entry stamp for Sikkim in my passport)? L.tak (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• • The U.S. can dictate special use of their passports for ALL international travel. As Treasury Licenses in addition to visa are required for travel to Cuba, North Korea, and Iran, they can set official rules for the use of THEIR travel document. THEIR document = THEIR rules. It is misleading, inaccurate and distasteful to negate the sovereignty of a nation of the U.S. and their travel documents with such absurdity.--XLR8TION (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Their document, but our wikipedia. Let's add that data, not remove the entire entity (IMO: that is not misleading, not distasteful, not negating sovereignty and not absurd, it is just a non-US point of view)... L.tak (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I would read the article on the Iroquois Passport to see the extent foreign governments go to refuse access to non-recognized states. Furthermore, recent incidents such as Jennifer Lopez's fiasco in Northern Cyprus [4] (the EU per the request of Greece threatened to deny her entry if she was to perform at a casino in the TRNC) shows how multinational organizations and independent nations can retaliate against travel to non-recognized states and misuse of travel documents. Israel prosecutes their citizens if their passports (whether Israeli or foreign) show travel to countries that don't recognize Israel such as Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. --XLR8TION (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This article pertains to U.S. citizens and this information is MISLEADING and the website can be held liable for legal damages if a U.S. citizen was to take misleading information from this article, travel to a fantasy country, and get in some sort of trouble. In this modern age where attorneys can find just cause for a lawsuit, adding any misleading, inaccurate info to an article should not be tolerated. U.S. consular assistance can't be extended in many cases where the U.S. has no representation. Whether or not they have a protecting power treaty with another nation might be one thing but inclusion of fantasy countries to the visa requirements of U.S. citizens or citizens of any country with non-recogition of one another is NOT constructive to Wikipedia's mission. Leave the information out.--XLR8TION (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Further Proof that the U.S. WARNS not to go to travel to pariah states --> [5].

Here's an excerpt:

"The Department of State warns U.S. citizens against travel to the occupied regions of South Ossetia, in north-central Georgia, and Abkhazia, in northwest Georgia.These regions are not under the control of the central government following civil wars in the early 1990s, and the conflict with Russia in August 2008. Tensions remain high between the de facto authorities in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and the central government. Russian troops and border guards continue to occupy both regions. Due to the volatility of the political situation, reported high levels of crime, and inability of embassy personnel to travel freely to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, the U.S. Embassy strongly discourages travel to these areas. The restricted access of U.S. officials to Abkhazia and South Ossetia significantly limits the ability of the U.S. government to assist U.S. citizens in these regions, even in emergencies. All travelers to these regions should enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP). The U.S. Embassy recommends that any travel to Abkhazia or South Ossetia be conducted in accordance with applicable Georgian laws (specifically that U.S. citizens enter the two regions from undisputed Georgia) and that U.S. citizens regularly monitor Emergency Messages on the Embassy website for the latest information on the security situation throughout Georgia.

The situation near both Abkhazia and South Ossetia remains unpredictable, and a number of attacks, criminal incidents, and kidnappings have occurred in and around these regions over the past several years. U. S. citizens are advised to exercise caution when traveling near the administrative boundary lines of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as there is a possibility of encountering unexploded ordnance near the administrative boundary lines of both regions, particularly on the North side of the South Ossetia administrative boundary line. Abkhaz de facto "border officials" and their Russian counterparts may demand that travelers entering the region purchase "visas" from the so-called "Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Abkhazia," but the U.S. Government and the majority of the international community do not recognize any jurisdiction of de facto authorities in either Abkhazia or South Ossetia. Entering the Abkhazia or South Ossetia area without the proper documentation can lead to arrest, imprisonment by border officials, and/or fines.

Further reason to NOT include pariah states. The U.S. is warning citizens as a legal recourse in case of any citizen encounters troubles prior or after entering non-recognized fantasy countries.--XLR8TION (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I did see nothing in the text you give about not being allowed to have a passport sticker there (just that it is disadvised to go there); also your JeLo example not: it's about supporting "wrong" regimes (not: fantasy regimes or so). It also doesn't change my opinion that the US POV is not the only pov here. I think we will not reach an agreement. I suggest to wait for 24 hours so others can weigh in (maybe you convinced someone else, maybe some of the people above that agreed that the entities should be in the list) and then to see what the consensus is... L.tak (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that text suggests that the US would permit travel to Abkhazia, blaming the visa on Russian/Abkhaz authorities, so long as you had the appropriate travel documents from the Georgian government. That's the sort of information you'd expect on the visa page. CMD (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In my reading of it, I just don't see this supporting your claim. To me it reads as a general warning and the "arrest, imprisonment by border officials, and/or fines" that might occur would be a the hands of the civil de facto authorities which they do not recognise - not by the United States itself. This is only advise, a citizen does not have to heed advise as they would a law. They are still free to travel where they choose and interact with whomever they wish. Outback the koala (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Also I would ask you to respect WP:BRD and not revert me again on the Visa requirements for United States citizens page. You made the first change, I reverted, now lets discuss it and come to a conclusion. Outback the koala (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Outback, L.tak and others. The articles is about "Visa requirements for United States citizens". The fact that the USA doesn't recognize these states is irrelevant. As others have pointed out above, the USA doesn't recognize Aruba or Taiwan as independent states, but these territories control access to their own territory and thus USA citizens must deal with their border control to enter. If there is well sourced information that USA citizens cannot enter the territory of these disputed states without a visa from the de facto authority, then this content should be added to the article. Any well sourced info about the USA government forbidding citizens from entering these states with a USA passport should also be added, as is done on Visa requirements for Israeli citizens. TDL (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• • First of all please DO NOT revert the article until this dispute is resolved. If it is not resolved here, I will move on to the next level and seek third opinions until I reach the final resolution steps. Once again, DO NOT revert. Second, as the U.S. State Department's country report on Georgia states, these fantasy countries demand the payment of visas at their pseudo border, hence translating that these fantasy countries DO NOT have consular networks like sovereign nations do. This clearly shows that these fake countries are administered by secessionists who are not happy with central rule in the countries that they are officially in. The warning states that the administrators make it difficult for US diplomats in Georgia to enter or travel through the disputed territory, hence stating that U.S. passports are really not valid for travel in these fantasy states. The article should only take into consideration the "Political realities" of the region and not the idealism or imagination of a select few of secessionists who feel that they're above international law. I have reverted the article and will seek open dialogue before moving to the next level of resolution, however, please refrain from reverting the article and causing an edit war. --XLR8TION (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I can identify a consensus when I see one. The consensus is: they should be in the article. Unfortunately we are not unanimous here, but that is not a requirement within wikipedia. We have discussed this now several days, so it is time to conclude. I will therefore re-instate the change and advice you not to edit war over it. Advice to all: please read up to the 3 revert rule if you are not familiar with it. L.tak (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That US diplomats would have trouble entering Abkhazia in no way implies that US passports aren't valid. It just means the US has no consular ability to help its citizens in Abkhazia. CMD (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• • U.S. State department has ruled that South Ossetia and Abzhakia do not exist. As the issuer of U.S. passports, they all legitimate rights to dictate their foreign policy which also includes passport use. Further more please see this article -->[6]. The State Department has ruled that they will accept neutral passports from these regions issued by Georgia. Most residents of these disputed areas have Russian passports, and even the EU has taken a tough stance on these fantasy regimes. This is an ongoing dispute and like the U.S. judicial system, the article should not include disputed info until all viable recourses for dispute resolution on this site is exhausted. --XLR8TION (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether Abkhazians can use their Abkhazian passports when travelling to the US is completely irrelevant to the issue whether US citizens can use their US passports to travel to Abkhazia.—Emil J. 20:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with EmilJ, the issue is about the ability for US citizens to travel to these states, not the other way around. And your source above shows that the US government knows these states exist, they just do not recognised their validity, and, as Chip says, the US would have, "...no consular ability to help its citizens in Abkhazia." Outback the koala (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This just seems like one (XLR8TION) person's biased look at an issue that is a worldwide reality while the majority clearly sees those areas as legit since sources are also supported to back them up. Personal and diplomatic documentation or whatever, those places are there & the USA's views are not the dominate one to dictate what is or isn't a nation. Opinions about passports & visas should be debated/discussed on their respective articles. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Input requested

IPs have been shifting around the states at the top of Caucasus for a bit lately. At one point NKR was under Armenia, at another it was under Azerbaijan with an Azerbaijani flag. South Ossetia has been deleted now and then. I asked at RfPP for protection, but the admin said to get 3Os instead, no doubt because one IP has stuck around. Third opinions on our discussion welcome at Talk:Caucasus#Abkhazia, Karabakh. CMD (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Recognized by at least one/ not recognized by at least one

The two things are basically the same (one state, but not all states) so it should be merged. 194.150.65.8 (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Those divisions aren't in this article. We have: Unrecognized; Non-UN recognized only by non-UN; Non-UN recognized by some UN; and UN unrecognized by some UN. The numbers aren't considered in any section. --Golbez (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestine

it has now the recognition as UN Observer State. we can't put it in the same place with a totally non member states 3bdulelah (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure we can. It's not a member state. Observer mission or observer state, it's still only an observer and thus not a member of the body. --Golbez (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

People here are thinking UN is some sort of important atlas?

Why we have a separated category for "Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members" and "Partially unrecognised UN member states"? UN is not some sort of "very good atlas", its just some sort of organization that countries MAY want/try to join. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.189.95 (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Trying to explain that for a while - most recently here, but also in previous discussion on that page such as here, here and here. This editing phenomena can be described as "UN membership POV" - and it's ironic that actually there are official sources showing that the UN itself doesn't agree with the notion that it's a gatekeeper of statehood, sovereignty, acceptance, importance or what not. Japinderum (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria for this page and several others was the result of a multiyear discussion which can be found in the archives of the list of soveriegn states page. I personally was in the minority and against using UN membership as a classification criteria, and instead favoured whether a state is recognized diplomaticly by a majority of otherstates as the determining factor, but i was in the minority. Your welcome to try to change people's minds about it, but the system in use now has fairly solid grounds after going through several rounds of mediation, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I will check the place you said to see if there is any discussion there, if dont find it I will ask here back for location of it. Also unlike japinderum I made an question, I am not trying to change the article (because I may even be wrong), I was just curious about it.187.58.190.246 (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

US recognition of North Korea

Along with Japan and South Korea, the United States also appears not to recognise North Korea. The article North Korea–United States relations states that the US has never recognised North Korea, and this article states that, as of 2004 when it was written, the US did not recognise North Korea, and a 2012 article states that the two countries remain technically at war and strongly suggests the US still doesn't recognise North Korea. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)