Talk:List of sovereign states

Moving forward

While I have opposed including Kherson and Zaporizhzhia here, there is a valid point being made that the letter of the inclusion criteria would appear to mean that they must be included. I argue that if the inclusion criteria require we do something non-neutral, then they must be changed. This discussion is thus to deal with what changes might be needed in the future.

The problem here is ultimately, as User:Selfstudier correctly said, The criteria implicitly assume quite reasonably that states will behave according to a set of rules. If states play fast and loose with the rules, then the system breaks down and ours along with it.

Well, this precise situation has come up twice now, with Crimea in 2014, and with Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in 2022, so I think it's worth considering the implications in more detail.

Options I thought of:

1. We adopt the list of excluded entities from the List of states with limited recognition.
2. We change the definition we apply for the constitutive theory of statehood, to state that recognition by a small minority of states should be insufficient for inclusion absent other factors.
3. We argue that the exclusion of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia was wrong and that we must include them and any similar situation in the future.
4. We argue that the inclusion criteria as currently listed are irredeemably WP:OR and that no better criteria are possible. Instead, this would become a redirect or dab page.

Going through these in turn:

For option 1, the list of excluded entities includes Those areas undergoing current civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession, regardless of temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria (e.g. 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 quasi-states have emerged yet., a description that seems to perfectly match the position of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. This is already standard consensus at List of states with limited recognition, and that list is the only potentially-meaningful difference in the definition of a "state" between the two lists.

For option 2, the theory holds that statehood arises from recognition by other states. While our article claims a precise number (if, and only if, it is recognised as sovereign by at least one other state), the literature is not nearly so prescriptive. In fact, the constitutive theory is a more general theory that says that statehood depends on recognition and not on the facts on the ground (see [1][2][3][4]). An example definition we could use that would fit with this definition is that any member or observer state at the United Nations that is recognised by at least one other state meets the standard of the constitutive theory, but that entities not part of the UN must also be sourced as meeting the standard of the declarative theory.

Option 3, I find unsatisfactory for all the reasons previously discussed, but I include it here to acknowledge that mine is not the only valid position on this.

Option 4, in reality maintaining this list requires a certain amount of judgement from editors. We would traditionally argue that this all flows from sources, but it is true that the two theories of statehood are stated in decidedly woolly terms and (per point 2) there are many interpretations that could be made. We have articles like Member states of the United Nations which might reasonably serve as suitable proxies.

I would be interested in hearing others' views on this. Kahastok talk 08:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Go with Option 1, simplest, has a consensus at the other page already and solves the problem. Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I prefer option 1 above, although we could perhaps word it more succinctly if it must be included on the page as well (must it?). That said, I don't agree with the premise of the discussion that it is an issue if our system breaks down if real life breaks down. When this happens, that is the list accurately changing to reflect what it is covering. This page covers an aspect of the international system defined by a set of conventions that can be abused. I don't see trying to smooth over this abuse when it occurs through the pretense that there is a right non-abused version as somehow more neutral. There is currently a state playing fast and loose with the rules of the topic this list is covering; reflecting that on the list reflects what is happening in the world. This ties into the thought behind option 4. The criteria was agreed on in part to try and get away from individually editorial assessments of specific polities. In that sense there is some OR, because we had to pick something out of the many options available from different sources. However, the criteria are specifically designed to greatly reduce the scope for OR. I'm not following the assertion that the constitutive theory requires judgment from editors, as it is probably as binary as possible (ignoring Somaliland and Taiwan here). The declarative theory is the criteria that actually requires judgment, as it requires us to evaluate sources, although even there we have a pretty hard line in that we have looked for sources that explicitly bring up the declarative theory (and this kept DPR and LPR off this list for many years). Giving it more prominence in the criteria (option 3) will increase the room for editorial judgment (and accusations of OR), not reduce it. CMD (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

A proposal per option 1 might be to add the following before the line On the basis of the above criteria, this list includes the following...:

Suggested text

Entities may sometimes be excluded from the list, even if they might be argued to meet the standard laid out. These include: Rebel groups, quasi-states and subnational entities that do not claim sovereignty, or that are not considered by independent sources to meet the standard of the declarative theory as described above. Entities that, in the context of an active war or dispute, technically meet the standard for a brief period but where no stable quasi-states have been formed. Alternative governments of existing states, where the government does not claim to govern a separate state tot hat listed. Micronations Non-state entities represented in international organisations, such as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and European Union. Uncontacted peoples.

Wording is a work in process, happy for it to be revised. Kahastok talk 14:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I would bold edit that in and then anyone can tinker with it thereafter in the usual way. Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Kahastok talk 16:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I've edited the wording. If you object to some of my changes, feel free to make your own further changes. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I have trimmed. Actually quite a lot - smaller than even my original addition. I've kept some of your wording, but I'm concerned that this shouldn't be an exhaustive list of all the things that don't belong, particularly in cases where it is clearly redundant to the inclusion criteria above (e.g. dependent territories, UK countries, EU/SMOM). The four categories I've left cover, I would suggest, the vast majority of entities that get proposed and rejected here.

In the case of the governments-in-exile one, part of the point is that they are not always in exile. The point is where we have places like Venezuela, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya, where foreign governments loudly recognise President X as the legitimate president of Y, but President X either doesn't have control (even if they live in-country) or only has control of part of the country. Kahastok talk 20:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I read through the changes and noted that it was partially duplicative of our already existing note of clarification. I've merged the two into the note to reduce this duplication, as such a note seems the best way to not drown out the simple criteria we have with a number of asterixes to deal with grey areas. CMD (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the current state of the article is the consensus. A user has been trying to revert back to an old revision for some reason. I think he is trying to restore the statuses of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia into the article... Otherwise, I don't see why he is increasing the number of states from 208 to 210. 208 includes the DPR and LPR, whereas 210 adds Kherson and Zaporizhzhia on top of that. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the sentences about dependent territories etc because they aren't listed as primary entries. Indeed, they are listed as secondary entries, within the main entries about countries. E.g. the Faroe Islands and Greenland are listed inside of Denmark's main entry. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Those sentences are specifically there to provide some context to the extents. CMD (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

They aren't necessary since the table itself (in the header) explains that information. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

They are there as longstanding clarifications regarding the criteria and are in the criteria section for that reason, as they cover entities that are sometimes included on similar lists (with names including those that might redirect here) but not on this one. CMD (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've shortened the sentence. It carries the same meaning, except that I've moved Cook Islands and Niue into the main list. "Similar entities" covers Hong Kong, Macau, Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir, etc. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The list only includes sovereign states. That excludes 99% of dependent territories and autonomous regions by default. It's self-explanatory. The only weird cases are Cook Islands and Niue. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop, CI/Niue are included already in the upper list as entities recognised by 1 or more UN member states. As to your other point, given this discussion (and the rest of this talkpage) is occurring, it's obviously not self-explanatory. CMD (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

They actually aren't in the upper list. If you count the entries in the upper list, Cook Islands and Niue are excluded. Indeed, Cook Islands and Niue are two examples of states in an free association arrangement. The other three main examples are Palau, Marshall Islands, and Micronesia. This description also applies to certain European microstates. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

205+2+1=208. Not sure what you're counting. CMD (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Which sovereign states recognise Cook Islands and Niue as sovereign states? There's an article that says 50+ states have diplomatic relations with Cook Islands, but there seems to be a distinction between diplomatic relations and sovereign recogntion. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

In any case, this will all be cleared up once DPR and LPR are removed from the list. I've also removed the entry for "states in free association" since that really only covers Cook Islands, Niue, Palau, Marshall Islands, and Micronesia, all of whom are already in the list. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please self-revert your edit warring changes into long-standing text. During previous discussions some editors found specific references they felt sufficiently established recognition as sovereign states (I was not one of these editors), and that led to their inclusion. As for free association, again that section is about the extents not the main list, and the CI/Niue case and the US cases are not the same. CMD (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please list some entities in the "extents" that are formally considered to be states in free association. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The Cook Islands and Niue? CMD (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

They aren't in the extents. They are in the main area. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

They are also in an extent, hence why they are mentioned in the part of the text dealing with what is in the extents. CMD (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I started a discussion thread on this article at NORN. TFD (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I am Opposed to any changes in the inclusion criteria, they were the result of a major RFC that has worked well for years. If anyone is proposing they be changed, they should open a formal RFC.XavierGreen (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The sentences about dependent territories etc are unnecessary. These territories are included as subsections of the main entries by default. They are not listed as primary entries. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

They are absolutely necessary, they are the inclusion criteria for what gets bulleted in the right hand column of the page. If those sentences weren't there, it would go back to the way it was before they were added with random changes getting added and removed every other day.XavierGreen (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

There's no need for those criteria. The right-hand column already has an explanation of its contents in the header (there's a note). Also, the entries in that column are typically limited to dependent territories, autonomous regions, and similar entities. It's pretty straightforward in my view. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Objectively speaking, places like Hong Kong and Macau are not sovereign states. The only people who view them in this way are the uninformed. Legally, they are controlled by the People's Republic of China. No sovereign state claims authority over Hong Kong, not even Hong Kong itself. The PRC regards Hong Kong as part of its internal territory, whereas Hong Kong is regarded as more of an external dependency by the West. Either way, Hong Kong is not a sovereign state. It's a similar case with many other similar entities, the only exceptions being Cook Islands and Niue, which behave like dependent territories of New Zealand but also operate as sovereign states in certain respects, e.g. foreign affairs. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@XavierGreen - As far as I can tell, the current state of the article is pretty close to what the consensus is, because various users of varying viewpoints have all more or less settled at this point. The only person who is opposed to the edits is you, which actually means that you are going against the consensus. The current consensus is to leave the DPR and LPR inside the article and to exclude Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, as far as I'm aware. The Criteria was also abbreviated, and an extra point of "unstable states during warfare are excluded" was added. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the inclusion criteria at NORN and other editors aside from myself have voiced serious concerns about user:Kahastok's proposal. The incusion criteria as they stood were created through a lenghty RFC processes with large numbers of editors. If you want to amend the inclusion critera, open a form RFC request.XavierGreen (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've got no clue what "NORN" is. Furthermore, I haven't changed the criteria myself since the "extents" fall outside of the main criteria anyhow. Dependent territories aren't included in the list by default. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

the Dependent territories and entities created by international treaty have always been included in this page as bulleted entities on the right hand column of the page. They are thus, "included in the list by default". If you had bothered to read what you were deleting, it would have been apparant.XavierGreen (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You have not explained anything here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I figured out what you guys are talking about. "No original research noticeboard." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think an RFC is necessary. If it were a substantial change I would agree, however it is a change only at the margin and the change appears to have consensus up till now. The discussion at NORN is a separate issue. Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The proposal is a substantial change, it could result in Armenia, Artsak, and Somaliland being removed from the list. They are all states that are partially recongized and yet are in the midst of active military conflicts. Your attempts to craft the inclusion criteria to get the specific result you want (removing the Russian puppet states) will have other ramifications well beyond what you intend. The situation at hand is nothing new, throughout history there have been states created at the instigation of another that were only partially recognized and then annexed or merged into another state. Examples include the various revolutionary republics founded in the late 1790's that were sponsored and recognized by France, the Republic of Texas and Republic of Hawaii, various Axis aligned client states like Slovakia, Tannu Tuva and Mongolia (Soviet client states) in the 1930's, Manchukuo and Biafra. Thus, the proposal is in fact a major change because in effect it seeks to eliminate an entire class of states from the page that have existed throughout history.XavierGreen (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Since when is Somaliland in the midst of an active military conflict? Somaliland's status is very stable at the moment, although it is located right next to Ethiopia (and Tigray), which is extremely unstable at the moment. Also, nobody in their right mind is going to remove Armenia from the list. That's a preposterous suggestion. The only entity that might be removed from the list is Artsakh, but Artsakh is actually fairly stable in its present state. There is currently no direct warfare occurring in Artsakh, although Azerbaijan has recently been launching direct attacks against Armenia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Somaliland has been engaged in intermittent fighting with Somalia's Puntland region virtually since its declaration of independence. Its eastern frontier is constently in flux, with fighting often flaring around election season and Federalist forces have frequently siezed control of Buuhoodle. As for Armenia and Artsakh, i suggest you give this article a read. Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not a significant enough conflict to nullify its existence. The border region is fluctuating, but the core area of the country has remained relatively stable throughout its entire existence. Indeed, compared to mainland Somalia, Somaliland is actually more stable. Also, the border with Ethiopia and Djibouti is stable. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

As for Armenia, Armenia's own sovereignty has never been seriously at risk. Only the sovereignty of Artsakh is at risk. If Artsakh is wiped from the map, that doesn't mean that Armenia will be removed as well. All of the countries that surround Armenia recognise its sovereignty, including Armenia's enemies such as Azerbaijan and Turkey. Armenia is a member state of the United Nations. Armenia also has a long and well-established history as a distinctive nation, going back thousands of years. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Armenia has only existed as a soveriegn state since 1991, and since that time it has been in an armed conflict with Azerbijan and affirmatively not recognized by Pakistan.XavierGreen (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Pakistan's non-recognition of Armenia is insignificant considering that Azerbaijan itself recognises Armenia. Furthermore, even though Armenia has only been independent in its contemporary form since 1991, the cultural history of Armenia stretches back to the era of the Roman Republic. Armenia is an ancient country, and it has at various times fallen under the control of various empires, such as Persia, the Ottomans, and Russia, but the national identity has never been destroyed throughout that period. Indeed, Artsakh has a high likelihood of disappearing at some point in the future, either by being absorbed into Azerbaijan or by being annexed by Armenia. Artsakh has no real national identity that is separate from Armenia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Out of 193 UN member states, the only one that doesn't recognise Armenia is Pakistan. Nobody takes Pakistan's stance seriously, and you shouldn't either. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking at it from a national identity perspective, Armenia is actually one of the least likely states to become extinct in the future. Countries exist both in the legal form and in the national form. Some countries that exist legally don't have a particularly strong national identity, and hence they are at genuine risk of collapsing even though they possess 100% international recognition. On the other hand, Armenia has managed to survive for this long already (around 3000 years), so I don't see any reason why it would cease to exist in the near future unless some kind of massive Second Armenian Genocide occurs where they are all wiped out. Even then, Armenia has a significant diaspora overseas, which is actually larger than the population of the modern-day sovereign state itself. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@XavierGreen - At the present moment, I have no intention of removing Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR from the list. The only entities that I objected to being added to the list were Kherson and Zaporizhzhia since they clearly are not real countries, having been ostensibly established by Russia inside of Ukraine during an ongoing military invasion and occupation. Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR are different because they were ostensibly established by "separatists", who subsequently developed closer ties with Russia before eventually being absorbed voluntarily into Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it rather fanciful that any good faith editor would consider even five years to be "a brief period", let alone thirty. Personally, I'd struggle to justify that description for anything much more than a few months and my instinctive limit would be a week or two. And I'd also add that in order to apply this criterion, we'd have to know that the period was going to be "brief".

I don't think anyone here is claiming the wording as sacrosanct and unchangeable however. We could quantify the time period if it would help. Kahastok talk 17:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The distinction of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia is that they were undeniably created by Russia during Russia's invasion and occupation of Ukraine, having been seized directly from Ukraine in a blatant land grab. This makes Kherson and Zaporizhzhia even different from Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR. With the Donetsk and Luhansk PRs, at least they had the appearance of "separatists" who genuinely desired self-determination. On the other hand, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia never had any kind of separatists to speak of. They were simply invaded and annexed by Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

By stating or quantifying a time period, you are proposing to inject even more arbitrary original research into the article. Your proposal itself is original research, neither the declarative or constitutive theories of statehood say that the fact a state is created during an ongoing conflict renders that polity not to be a state.XavierGreen (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@XavierGreen - Kherson and Zaporizhzhia have never fulfilled the criteria of the declarative theory of statehood. They only fulfill the constitutive theory due to having been recognised by Russia, but this is a clear abuse of the system. Russia apparently didn't even recognise them as "republics". They literally recognised them as "oblasts". So, according to Russia, "Kherson Oblast" and "Zaporizhzhia Oblast" are real independent sovereign states. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

How is it "an abuse of the system", the theories of statehood don't care about your personal polical beliefs or those of anyone they are objective and neutral as to all viewpoints.XavierGreen (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You can't just invade a country, stage referendums where the inhabitants are held at gunpoint, and declare that a piece of territory is an "independent country" within literally just one day of subsequently annexing that piece of territory. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, that is exactly what India did to the Kingdom of Sikkim in 1975. The West stayed quiet and said nothing at that time though. Nowadays, Sikkim is universally recognised as a part of India. So.... 1.159.145.27 (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not the same thing. Sikkim was (1) not a subregion of another sovereign state and (2) already a distinctive sovereign state at the time of its annexation by India. So, the equivalent to India annexing Sikkim would have been Russia annexing the entirety of Ukraine. If India had annexed only 15% of Sikkim, then that would have been a comparable situation. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, as far as I can tell, the Indian referendum in Sikkim wasn't about "independence" but rather about directly acceding to India (I've not looked deeply into this, so correct me if I'm wrong). On the other hand, the Russian referendums in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia had two stages. The first stage was declaring independence as distinctive sovereign states, and the second stage was acceding to Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

By the declarative theory of statehood, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia have never qualified as independent states in any capacity. This is recognised not just by me but by the majority of the world except for Russia and maybe China. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it. China is the last country on Earth to recognise India’s sovereignty over Sikkim, which was annexed by India through a similar sham referendum in 1975. China is a die-hard supporter of territorial integrity due to its own Taiwan issue. 1.159.145.27 (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk, one final time

Putin has signed the ratified annexation treaties, meaning that the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, in the form of self-proclaimed sovereign states, do not exist anymore. They should be removed. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, i concur, now is the point at which they (or Russia) consider themselves to be sovereign states. If Syria or North Korea affirmatively says that they still recognize them as sovereign states, they should be readded (like the Baltic state were recognized pre-1991).XavierGreen (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't really like the Baltic states, which claimed to be independent despite Soviet objections. The DPR and LPR no longer consider themselves independent because they have joined Russia via (fraudulent) referendums, and Russia has recognized this. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Correct. The DPR and LPR don't even recognise themselves as independent sovereign states, so it ultimately doesn't really matter what North Korea and Syria think. There is no such thing as a "DPR/LPR government in exile". The DPR and LPR have happily annexed themselves into Russia. There's no armed resistance from them (note: not the same deal with the Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast of Ukraine, which are actively resisting Russian annexation). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Bear in mind that there is the minor technicality of the fact that Russia actually annexed both the DPR/LPR and the Donetsk/Luhansk Oblasts of Ukraine. Russia never recognised the two Oblasts in the first place (after 2014), but the DPR/LPR did not control the entirety of the Oblasts from 2014 to 2022, with large portions remaining under Ukrainian control. When Russia recognised the DPR/LPR in February 2022, it "recognised them within their original borders", which supposedly means that Russia recognised the DPR/LPR as the legitimate authorities of the entire Oblasts (including Ukrainian-controlled parts). Subsequently, Russia annexed the entire territories of Donetsk and Luhansk under Russian control, including parts that were either under DPR/LPR rule for 7+ years or under Ukrainian rule prior to February 2022. Russia does not control a significant portion of Donetsk (still Ukrainian) and a small portion of Luhansk, although Russia has not recognised concrete borders, claiming that "the borders are for the people to decide". So, effectively, Russia is currently in a state of having "fluid borders", and we really cannot say what is going on because none of this makes sense. Putin's logic is in a world of its own. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@XavierGreen - I think you mean to say that "this is the point at which they no longer consider themselves to be sovereign states". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, the DPR and the LPR are not countries anymore (not that I think they ever really were, but I digress). It seems that most of the regular editors of this page have decided to just sit around and wait for reliable sources to come trickling in. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Eh, well, I agree with their recent removal by AxolotlsAreCool. The ratification by Putin seems final enough. Theoretically, we do need to see whether North Korea and Syria will renounce their official recognitions, but that's merely a formality at this point. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Russia claimed administrative divisions

@Kahastok - The extent for Russia previously said that Russia had "85 federal subdivisions", and then mentioned that 2 of them (Crimea and Sevastopol) are disputed. However, I changed it to say that Russia has "83 internationally recognised federal subdivisions", and then I mentioned that Russia claims and partially/fully controls an additional 6 federal subdivisions (areas). The issue arises from Russia being officially a "Federation", which apparently means we need to list every single federal unit of Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Any sources that any of the federal divisions are "internationally recognised"? Domestic administration is generally a matter for the state. CMD (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The 6 extra federal divisions certainly are NOT internationally recognised, which is the more important fact. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Source that the international community cares at all about how Russia wants to carve up their claims? CMD (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

We can talk about semantics all you want. Russia could carve up 6 pieces into 7, 8, 9. It doesn't matter. If we list Russia's territory in square kilometres, it will be clear exactly how much is internationally recognised and how much isn't. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Correct, it doesn't matter. Leave that to articles which deal with territory in square kilometres. CMD (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

We don't distinguish between what other countries internal subdivisions (like India or China) are recognized or not, so why should Russia be singled out? The Russian government itself has 89 internal federal subjects, that's what the article should state.XavierGreen (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

We do distinguish between administrative divisions that are controlled versus claimed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2022

Some of Russia's claimed federal subjects are not recognized by the international community but some are at least by a few countries. Given controversial nature, why is it necessary to even specify the exact number of subjects on this page? Better say it's a federation and leave it at that. 2600:1700:20:1D80:A0A5:449D:F54D:EEC (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The entities within each federation are listed on this page due to the interaction between federations and sovereignty. However, they remain internal matters and are not generally the subject of international recognition.

That said, the specific number given is an interesting topic for consideration. Our treatment is currently inconsistent (noting particularly the entries for Comoros and Somalia). CMD (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Chechnya

Ukrainian recognition of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria - If this actually gets signed and ratified by Zelenskyy, then we will have to add the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria to this article, in the same way that we added Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Glorious days might just be ahead of us. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You draw the comparison, and say that we must include based on Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Yet you opposed including Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, so your argument is a double standard.

Plus, there was never consensus to include Kherson and Zaporizhzhia on this article, so it is difficult to claim them as some kind of precedent.

I object to including Chechnya based on the sources we have available, which do not say that Ukraine proposes to recognise Chechnya as a sovereign state. Being recognised as occupied territory is manifestly different from being recognised as a sovereign state, and there are examples of cases where countries recognise the one but not the other. Kahastok talk 20:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Liberland (but here me out)

Liberland is possibly recognized by 4 (non-micronation) countries. The most known of these is Somaliland. ([5]). Apparently the Liberland passport is valid in Colombia, and depending on how you think might count as being recognized ([6]). Also Liberland is a vaild "ecominc parnter" with Malawi, ([7]) and one for a span of 5 years that started in 2020 with Haiti ([8]). 2007Gtbot (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The BBC source doesn't say that there was recognition, and Somaliland isn't a UN member state anyway. The others all fall under WP:SELFSOURCE, and fail at least two of the five requirements there. Specifically, the material makes exceptional claims about third parties.

What I see overall here is a micronation being a micronation. This is what micronations do. I see nothing that would suggest that this micronation meets the standard for inclusion here. Kahastok talk 17:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

These were less, sources I would use in an artical and more like sources so that I don't sound crazy. In and artical I would source the actural documents themself if possable. I just don't have the texts of the documents. 2007Gtbot (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)