Talk:List of proposed state mergers

Hatay State, Turkey

The Hatay State joined Turkey in 1939. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beshogur (talk • contribs) 15:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

Why is this article not semi-protected? This article has a very low quality due to all the vandalism on this article. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Original research and other unconstructive edits

There is still a lot of unconstructive edits to the article, including one relatively recently that removed the notes that I added to keep editors from adding non-notable/inappropriate examples (which I had to add back more than a week and more than a dozen other edits later). Much more oversight of this article is needed. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

We need a solid inclusion criteria that we can use as a benchmark in discussion, and that could be put onto the page as well. Off the top of my head, support by persons/a party that are/were in power as a government would be a good start. CMD (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: You mentionned semi-protection in a previous section. Perhaps someone could request it? As an aside, could you explain your removal of the Romania-Moldova merger? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 01:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be good to request semi-protection. As to the Romania-Moldova merger, it doesn't seem like a very serious proposal. What I mean is, it seems like all talk with no action taken (sometimes a government official states support for unification, but no action results from it, from what I see on the article). The merger proposal was also removed by Chipmunkdavis recently, but then re-added by another user. However, I don't mind you adding it back if you think it was inappropriate to do so. :) --1990'sguy (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well I suppose that's why we should have some criteria for inclusion :) In this specific case, I consider the fact that the Romanian President publicly supported unification 3 years ago as sufficient. Merger discussions are long processes that take time so I don't think we should require constant recent evidence. @Chipmunkdavis: What do you think? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 01:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you think we should place it in the "historical" section if the Romanian president supported it three years ago (just a thought). Also, I moved the "modern-day" Peru–Bolivian Confederation to the historical section as it was proposed in 2011. What do you think of that? In the meantime, I did request page protection here, so we'll see how this goes. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Then I don't understand why is the failed Annan Plan then a current proposal? Also it's arguable whether the Korean reunification is more relevant currently in the light of the latest events and conflict escalation in the peninsula. As Abjiklɐm mentioned above, we need clear criteria, agreed by all, to determine which merger proposal should be included and where (current or historical). Until then this article should get semi-protected and any change should be discussed on the talk page. Cheers, Mentatus (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The Annan Plan is dead, but unification is still a stated goal for Cyprus, and the current President of Northern Cyprus seems to be on board with the idea; furthermore there has been for over a year now a fresh round of negotiations. The Korean governments both still maintain unification as a part of government policy. Both of these seem like solid candidates for "current".

I am less sure about Romania-Moldova and Peru-Bolivia. While there are still many who support the idea of Romanian-Moldovan integration, there is no longer any influential political party running with this as part of their agenda. Peru-Bolivia I haven't seen anything more than that source, and frankly it doesn't describe a proposal so much as an ideal, which I feel is a significant difference. I'm not sure it should be on this page at all, but given its not a current government policy (to my knowledge), the historical section seems appropriate if it is to be included. CMD (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, just to be nitpicky, if the Annan Plan is dead then neither the corresponding article nor the proposed flag should be mentioned, depicted or linked to anymore. One may use the generic flag (see the Chinese example above) and a link to Republic of Cyprus instead. Mentatus (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

How would you define "influential"? A political party that is represented in the parliament? Mentatus (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced proposals that were made 5 years ago should be put in the historical section. When a proposal is made seriously by some countries' governments, we should give them a longer period before labeling the proposal as "historical". As such, I'd include both Cyprus (who's had talks as late as 2015) and Romania-Moldova (whose last president supported unification as late as 2013). As I said before, there probably won't be constant news about state mergers. But once a proposal has really become fringe, then I agree it should be placed in the historical section. For Cyprus specifically, Mentatus is right that the page should not link to the Annan plan. Instead, I'd favour linking to Cyprus dispute and displaying a flag placeholder. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Cyprus has had talks as late as today, so that's reasonably constant news! Generally though you're correct. I don't really mind the flag either way, as I recall that was unrelated to the failure of the Amman Plan.

I would define influential roughly as I stated above, "persons/a party that are/were in power as a government". I wouldn't include all parties in a parliament, although I am open to convincing. CMD (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I've put Cyprus back into current with the flag placeholder as suggested and adjusted the text. CMD (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for finding a newer reference! What of Romania? The current president seems less interested in unification (though not opposed to it) as the previous [1], but I'd say it is still an ongoing subject of discussion.

I'd expand the definition of influential to include major opposition parties. It's not a strict criterion, but it can serve as a guideline on a case-by-case basis. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm less familiar with the Romania-Moldova situation. To my knowledge, the Romanian parties don't include unification as part of their agenda, rather it's something they'll think about in the future (as you say, not opposed to it, but not enthusiastic). I could very well be wrong though. No major Moldovan parties currently advocate union. It's definitely a subject of discussion though; I know in Moldova there's a minority political movement advocating it.

I considered major opposition parties, but I wasn't sure what would make them "major", hence my "were" in power, which I felt would cover a lot of major opposition parties. I'm sure there may be notable situations that don't fit that definition, but that was the baseline I thought of. It would make Romania-Moldova historical, rather than current, so it may be inadequate if editors feel Romania-Moldova should be in current. CMD (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been reading a bit more. I'm not sure whether to include it but 2015–16 protests in Moldova makes a case that it is still a fairly debated topic to this day. The current governments don't seem to work towards that goal, but it sure does provoke a lot of commotion still, both in the public and the media. Perhaps that's a notable situation that doesn't fit our definition? Also, it seems that the previous Romanian prime minister also supported the merger. In any case, if we decide to include it, I think it should go in the current section. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the People's Movement Party (founded by the former president Traian Băsescu, who is also its current chairman) currently supports the unification of Romania with Moldova, see here:"Traian Băsescu, elected chairman of PMP. Unification with Moldova is a major goal of the party" (in Romanian). Euractiv.. As Traian Băsescu was in power and he openly supported the unification (he even proposed that to the former president of Moldova, Vladimir Voronin: "Băsescu proposed Voronin the unification of Romania with Moldova". Gândul (in Romanian).), according to your criterion ("persons/a party that are/were in power as a government") the article should be mentioned under the current merger initiatives. We should also avoid criteria that would make a merger switch back and forth from current to historical and back whenever a person or a party supporting the respective initiative would leave or join back the government, respectively. Mentatus (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

As I said, my criteria (that I remind everyone were rough ideas!) included past governments in order to avoid entries going back and forth. If you feel Romania/Moldova fits that, then I agree they should be in current proposals. That leaves the question of how long the issues need to be out of the political sphere in order to be considered historical. CMD (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I'd say at least 5 years, maybe more. Less if there's a clear indication that the proposal has been entirely abandoned by the countries involved, or if it was just a remark made once during an election period (Peru-Bolivia for example). But I think we'd be hard pressed to find a single criterion to go by. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd say a decade if it was a clear proposal and not some discussion over dinner. I've restored Romania+Moldova, although I've not added sources for the moment as I'm personally hesitant to add sources from languages I don't understand. Feel free though if you're confident! CMD (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

A decade seems fine to me. I don't understand the language either :) Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 19:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

That's why there are Romanian-speaking wikipedians around :) Feel free to use Google Translate meanwhile :) Mentatus (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Coming up with criteria for inclusion

I think we all agree that we need some criteria for which proposals to include and which to keep out. In invisible notes at the top of the "Current" section, I wrote that only serious and sourced proposals can be added, but that obviously is not enough. I suggest adding a section at or near the top that is dedicated to explaining the criteria for inclusion for this article. Here (in bullet points) is what I suggest we include in our "official" criteria:

• Only include sovereign states that plan on uniting (this is already de-facto, just making it de-jure)
• Proposal must be supported by a head-of-state, a formidable opposition party, or a significant proportion of the population.

Is there anything that I missed? Any other suggestions? --1990'sguy (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we should wait to see what kinds of additions are made here before deciding on criteria. Those who ignored what your wrote before will probably continue to ignore whatever we come up with anyway. I'm satisfied with the two original criteria you mentioned: serious and verifiable. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 02:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Some review comments for the second bullet point:

1. Why should the proposal be supported only by a head of state? In a parliamentary system that wouldn't make much sense. I suggest replacing it by "at least one of the branches of government".
2. Please define "formidable" and "significant proportion".
3. Which head of state or population are you referring to? The head of states and populations of all countries involved in the merger? Mentatus (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Good points. Your first point probably is better than just the head of state. For your second point, what I generally meant was an opposition party or a proportion of the population that would be taken seriously by most people including the country's government and/or the media. For example, the proposed unification of Korea would fit the criteria, but a group that supports the U.S. and Canada uniting would not fit, as the government and the media of both countries do not take that proposal seriously, and because there is no public will for such a merger to happen. For the third point, I would say that proposals where there are forces in both/all countries involved (like the government, media, public will, etc.) that support unification. The points above were just a draft, and it might be better to follow Abjiklɐm's advice after all. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if that's a good enough criterion, but perhaps we should accept only those proposals that are notable enough to have their own articles. I see this page as an index directing readers to other articles with more info. Since only WP:NOTABLE topics get articles, only notable proposals would be included here. Of course that applies only to failed/future mergers. Those that did occur can be included anyway since they're real history. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a little awkward using Wikipedia as its own WP:N criterion per WP:WINARS. The fact that articles haven't been written about genuine state merger proposals can equally reflect the fact that the Western media aren't bothered with more recent proposals. By the same token, there are numerous terrible articles that are badly sourced, or just POV and not notable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should use WP as a source here. Of course everything here should be properly sourced. But I think anything worth including on this page is certainly worth having its own article too. Conversely, if an article is badly sourced and POV, then the problem is not whether to include it here, but whether the article should exist in the first place. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm in absolute agreement that the list needs to be proscribed but, unless we use RS to define what constitutes a state merger (using the List of states with limited recognition as a parallel), we're hard pressed to exclude proposed mergers if there are RS backing up the assertion. Ultimately, it is a case by case proposition: no RS, no entry. I'm dubious about the use of the 'you can help' template. Rather than attracting users with more sources, it attracts more, "Ooooh, I know one that should be here!" content development. No RS, no entry. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Australia & New Zealand.

I'm honestly done with this page. People keep reverting edits and being stupid about it.

There is a move for Australia and New Zealand to unite. I'm sick of you people, bye -The2016 The2016 (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Australia & New Zealand should be included in the list. The Constitution of Australia has kept the possibility of a reunification with New Zealand open. If the Kiwis want to join the Commonwealth, they can do so at any time they wish. 120.16.213.168 (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

United States of Europe

Should we add the proposed "United States of Europe" as a current proposal? Martin Schulz, who was the president of the European Parliament until one year ago (and still leads the SDP in Germany), recently called for establishing such a country within a few years.[2][3][4] A recent YouGov poll also found that about 30% of Germans and French support a U.S.E. (with roughly the same number of people in those countries opposed to it). It seems that while there are no official talks/negotiations about establishing a U.S.E. (as the Bloomberg article definitely shows), it's a real concept that has sizable support at least in certain parts of Europe. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the USE is a good idea. Ultimately, the world will be dominated by the Big 4: the USA, the USE, India and Brazil. 120.16.213.168 (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Floated at least as early as 2010. Actively discussed at least since 2012. Parties with Wikipedia entries in yue.wikipedia.org and opening advocate this are not represented in the legislature as at 2018. Flags of pre-1997 HK are displayed in many demonstration including the annual procession on 1st July. 124.217.189.246 (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

German unification model for China and Korea

I don't think that German unification model will work for China and Korea as it will maintain US bases to Soviet and Vietnamese borders, thus creating a threat to Vietnam and Soviet Union. I prefer confederation (as with Hong Kong and Macau) or a Vietnamese model (military conquest and fall of Taipei and Seoul). 94.180.44.53 (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Frangleterre

Frangleterre proposed in 1956 should be mentioned tbh, i'm just too lazy to do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.230.239 (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Ireland and N-Ireland

It's unclear to me why this proposed state merger is not included? It's realistic, there is a long and consistent push for it, and it is entirely consistent with the other content on this list. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

As Northern Ireland is not a state, it joining Ireland would not be a state merger, but a shifting of territory from the UK to Ireland. CMD (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

But Greenland and the Turks and Caicos Islands are not sovereign states either, Kosovo and Taiwan are disputed states, why just bar Northern Ireland from the list? 120.16.213.168 (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

But the page isn't solely about unions of states: "a merger or union of two or more existing states, territories, colonies or other regions". I realize that this is tricky, but I think this page would benefit from a more expansive view of the kinds of mergers that are listed. The lead seems to have adopted that expansive view. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That expansive view does not include integral parts of countries, or the article might potentially cover every proposed change of territory between countries. CMD (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by integral parts of the country, and why that is not covered under the expansive view quoted above? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is not a dependent territory or a colony, and given "other regions" covers everywhere it's not useful as a criteria by itself. CMD (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on N-Ireland, but it seems that it's a distinct administrative unit within the UK, with considerable autonomy. A lot of the other proposed mergers seem to be similar units. So a Ireland-NI union would not just be arbitrary border changes, but rather a merger between a state and a distinct administrative unit. In my opinion, that's precisely the kind of content that belongs on the list. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There are lots of administrative units in every country, with varying levels of autonomy. That does not make them states. There is also no source indicating that the United Ireland would be a merger involving the NI Government. Border changes are rarely arbitrary, and with such extensive inclusion this article would overlap significantly with articles such as List of active separatist movements in Europe and List of irredentist claims or disputes. CMD (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Is the exclusion of Irish reunification consistent with the inclusion of the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and the proposed acquisition of Greenland by the United States? TompaDompa (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Crimea officially declared itself an independent state (for around a week), and that is why there was a state merger. As for Greenland, it's arguably a dependent territory, so it could be interpreted to fit within the expansive criteria mentioned. Personally I wouldn't include it as I feel merger implies a union of entities of similar status, but it's a different situation to Northern Ireland.

More similar current examples to Northern Ireland might be Mayotte and Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)+Ladakh, or historically Vorarlberg. CMD (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought Northern Ireland had a similar status in the United Kingdom as Greenland does in Denmark? At any rate, it seems pretty clear that this list needs to clarify its inclusion criteria. TompaDompa (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. There needs to be some consistency throughout the list and also to avoid these disputes. I could review some of the academic literature later this month to see how it covers "states mergers" and "unions". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The political structures of the UK and Denmark are quite different. The UK is a unitary state, with some devolved governments covering parts of its territory due to authorisation by the central government. Denmark is more complicated, but Greenland lies outside of Denmark Proper, and has its own designated representative of the Crown, much like British Overseas Territories have Governors.

Regarding consistency and the need for clearer inclusion criteria, Ireland/Northern Ireland does not fit within the criteria as they currently stand. Per the hatnote of this article, they fit in List of irredentist claims or disputes. Expanding this page to cover all annexations would be a huge expansion in scope, and would dilute to insignificance the core focus of this list. Perhaps it needs to be more restrictive, to stick solely to sovereign states. CMD (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

One possibility that might help clarify further is to split this list into multiple sections, say one for mergers between states, one for mergers between colonies, and one for mergers between a state and a colony (if we choose to keep those). CMD (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that might be a good idea. Or just keep the table format as it is and add a clarifier as to what kind of status the merging unit has (independent state, colony, self-governing unit, separate administrative unit etc.). So, for example, the unification of East and West Germany would say that both were states prior to the union, whereas the prospective union of the US and Greenland would clarify that the US is already a state whereas Greenland is an autonomous part of Denmark. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a possibility, although it gets tricky when we deal with sui generis entities, of which Greenland is one. Maybe just two states (eg. the Germanies) and others? No matter how we do this though, there will be edge cases (similarly to how I feel the current US+Greenland is an edge case for inclusion at all). For example, South Africa + the Bantustans, which I've just realised isn't on this page, but is very similar to Russia + Crimea and so should be. CMD (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think the inclusion criteria should be strict. When I see a Wikipedia article called "List of proposed state mergers", I expect it to contain cases were two sovereign states merge into a sovereign state by mutual agreement (e.g. German reunification). I don't particularly expect to see separatist movements without or with very limited international recognition (e.g. the Confederate States of America and the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, respectively), military conquests (e.g. the Indonesian invasion of East Timor), personal or dynastic unions (e.g. the Kalmar Union and Iberian Union, respectively), or anything that requires the qualifier "loose" (e.g. the Senegambia Confederation). But most importantly, I don't expect inclusion to be decided by editors on a case-by-case basis – I expect there to be explicit inclusion criteria and inclusion to be decided by WP:Reliable sources. TompaDompa (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Other possible state mergers

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89RXsEXcdwc

Interesting video. Should we add the following proposals:

1. Bolivia & Peru

2. Czechia & Slovakia

3. Ireland & Northern Ireland

4. Cyprus & Northern Cyprus

5. Republika Srpska & Serbia

Personally, I am a big fan of state mergers. I think it is the way to go in future international politics. State mergers are generally beneficial for both countries, especially for those landlocked states merging with their nearby coastal brothers. Landlocked states just have too many disadvantages, this type of unifications will benefit the likes of Belarus, Bolivia, Burundi, Kosovo, Moldova, Rwanda, South Sudan, and Uganda greatly, although the unification of Albania and Kosovo is less likely to happen due to Serbia’s opposition.

The ultimate goal should be one world one country with a global government. 120.16.213.168 (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Atlantic union

I think that the proposed Atlantic Union should be added to this list.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Union

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Now

Dmdogs900 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)