Talk:Government-in-exile/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

request for mediation for case of ROC

I have filed an informal request for mediation. Hopefully we can find a solution with some help. Ngchen (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't followed the debate above, but I think it seems strange to list "-" for exile year - even if exile itself is dubious - in such case we should show the year at least according to the "it is in exile" POV (it is clear by the dubious flag explanation and the long text in the notes column that this date is not "accepted by all" POVs). Alinor (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

classification change

The current classification consists of:

• Deposed governments of current states
• Deposed governments of subnational territories
• Exiled governments of subnational territories
• Exiled governments of Non-Self-Governing or Occupied Territories
• Alternative governments of current states
• Separatist governments

The only difference of the two "governments of subnational territories" territories is that the Tibet GiE claims to be government of the same Tibet that China rules, where the Georgian GiEs claim to be governments of territories placed in another country than that where they are currently ruled from. I propose that we merge these two into a single "Exiled governments of subnational territories" or "Deposed governments of subnational territories" category.

The "separatist governments" category contains really "active autonomist and secessionist movements" (Ambazonia, Biafram, Cabinda, Chechen, Shan, South Moluccas, Krajina, Kurdistan, Turkestan - some of these work outside, others inside the countries in question) and maybe "Exiled governments of subnational territories" (Cabinda). So, these should be moved accordingly, if not already there. The only rationale for listing those here (but not listing the rest of the secessionist movements) that I see is that maybe those already "proclaimed" some state/government, where the others haven't done this yet. In this case the lead of the section should be changed in order to clarify the difference between those here and the rest of the secessionist/authonomist movements. Alinor (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Also the current description of the "separatist governments" category seems wrong - "territories which are not fully independent today, but have been subsumed by a different political entity." - because these territories are not independent no only today, but were not independent in their previous one or more predecessor entities too; and also they haven't been subsumed, but just remained part of their predecessor when it gained independence; and finally - most (all?) of these GiE were established much later than the independence of the common predecessor (of the GiE-claimed territory and of the current controlling state), thus these are secessionist/autonomist movements that have declared a GiE as part of their activities, but are not direct successors of previous governing authority of the claimed territory (in contrast to Tibet/Abkhazia/Belarus/etc. GiEs). I propose that besides making the appropriate changes to the description we rename the category to "Separatist alternative governments of current subnational territories". Alinor (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It also seems the Ethiopia GiE is like "Free Vietnam" (not direct successor to the former ruling government, but having "links" with it in the form of former officials/monarchical relatives), thus it should be moved to "alternative GiE"? Alinor (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The classification of the Tibetan government-in-exile still seems problematic to me. It is currently in the "Deposed governments of subnational territories" section, along with the Georgian-loyalist provincial governments of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is not in the "Exiled governments of Non-Self-Governing or Occupied Territories" section. However, TGiE has certainly never described itself as the government of a subnational entity. To the extent that it is really a government-in-exile at all, it seems to be implying that it is the government of an occupied country. It seems like we are adopting a POV by denying "non-self-governing or occupied" status to TGiE's claims. Moreover, it hardly seems to fit into a natural categories with the two Georgian sub-national governments, which have become exiled due to their loyalty to central authorities, as opposed to the other way around.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

See the links on Non-self-governing and OCP articles - these are about particular entities and are based on UN position about what the status of these territories is (non-self-governing and occupied respectively). The commonality in this group is that currently they are under control of another country, but the UN position is that their populations have the right of self-determination and thus may choose to form independent states. Tibet clearly doesn't fall in this group.

If you think that Tibet GiE claims to originate form an independent state/wants to restore it - then it should go into the "alternative separatist" section, like Republic of Cabinda (and the other with "merged" columns that had previous control on the ground). Currently the defining property of "deposed governments of subnational territories" is that the GiEs don't claim to be "independent state", but some subnational administrative body. If the GiE claims independence instead of autonomy, then it belongs to the "alternative separatist" list.

We can of course change this in such a way that all GiEs with former control (Tibet/Abkhazia/South Ossetia/merged-columns-separatists) are in one group and "alternatives" (e.g. GiEs established years after the deposition events) in another group. That way the defining property is whether the GiE is "really exiled/deposed" or is an "alternative" established later. Both groups will have "as" columns so that is clear what of the 1-2-3-4 options below they represent (section descriptions will be changed accordingly).

The question is what does the Tibet GiE claim:

1. "In 1959 Tibet was autonomous part of China, we were deposed, we want to govern Tibet as autonomous part of China"
2. "In 1959 Tibet was autonomous part of China, we were deposed, we want to govern Tibet as independent state"
3. "In 1959 Tibet was independent state, we were deposed, we want to govern Tibet as autonomous part of China"
4. "In 1959 Tibet was independent state, we were deposed, we want to govern Tibet as independent state"

From what I read I assume it was 1 - that's why I put it in this group. If it's 2/3/4 we can change it accordingly.

Georgian GiEs. Yes, they are the other way around (in the sense that Tibet was exiled by the central power, where Georgian GiEs are parts of the central power exiled by 'separatists') - that's what the "as" columns are showing - "GiE: autonomy vs. Current control: independent state". In addition to Georgian flags in the description column. Alinor (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that re-arranging subnational/alternative/separatist into two groups of "current subnational territories" (with GiEs that had former control - regardless if internationally recognized or not; aim of GiE to be seen in the "exile as" column - autonomist or separatist/independent) and "alternative" (no former control/newly established; aim of GiE and current status of the territory to be seen in the "exile as"/"current control as" columns). Alinor (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

On second thought maybe a better way to splice GiEs would be in 3+1 groups (3 real, 1 alternate) instead of the current 3+2 (3 real, 1 alternate, 1 mixed):

1. With former(current partial) control ("real exile"), regardless if they were recognized or not during their control time
   1. of former states (current status seen in "current control as" column)
   2. of non-self-governing/occupied territories, recognized as "potential states"
   3. of former autonomous territories (current status seen in "current control as" column)
2. Without former control - newly established later ("alternative") (autonomy/state aim seen in "claimed exile as" column; current status seen in "current control as" column)

This way we will classify the GiEs according to THEIR nature (control: if they are real-former/alternate; status: if they are GiE of state/potential state/autonomy) with the nature of the current controlling authority represented in the "current control as" column. Currently the 5 section division is based on a mix of "former status", "current status", "former control", "no fomer control" criteria - that's why some seem at odd places - simply the definitions of the places/sections use mixed properties. Alinor (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC) As this would mix recognized and non-recognized states and GiEs we could add italics:

• Partial GiEs of recognized (by some) state/autonomy: dark background, no italics (RoC, SADR, Palestine)
• Partial GiEs themselves non-recognized: dark background, italics (Hamas)
• Full GiEs of recognized state/autonomy : no background, no italics (Belarus, Myanmar, Iran, Laos)
• Full GiEs of former non-recognized state/autonomy: no background, italics Alinor (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the Tibetan government-in-exile is ambiguous on various points. It is the continuation of a regime that had been both a de facto independent state and a subnational entity at different times. Moreover, it's not clear how directly it is a continuation of the Dalai Lama's old government. It doesn't seem to be the case that the top leadership of the old government all went into exile at the same time and declared their government-in-exile. Rather it seems to have been the paramount leader (the Dalai Lama) himself plus a grab bag of persons who had been involved in the old government in various capacities. Their claims about their current status are also unclear, with their self-description seeming to conflict with their proposals for the future.

I still don't think it makes sense to group them with the exiled Georgian subnationals. Could we just create a section for "governments-in-exile with ambiguous claims" or something along those lines? They are basically sui generis.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Tibetan government-in-exile

I'll think about what the question of the overall layout of this page, but regarding the Tibetan case specifically, two points: a) does the UN maintain some kind of official list of areas that are occupied and are entitled to self-determination? The UN resolution in 1961 says that Tibet is entitled to self-determination, and I'm not aware that that has ever been officially revoked. b) TGiE's position seems to be deliberately vague and ambiguous, but, as near as I can tell, it is something like this, "In 1951, Tibet was independent state, we were deposed, we are currently by rights an independent state, but we want to govern Tibet as autonomous part of China".—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The UN did keep such a list of territories needing self determination, the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, but it dealt with the less ambiguous case of colonies. You can imagine the bloody conflicts, and the multi-ethnic states that would not allow it, if the UN were to declare that every ethnic group everywhere had a right to an independence of their choosing. That 1961 resolution, as with the United Nations declaring a side in the Korean War, was an anomalous result of the contemporary Cold War politics, in which the Communist bloc boycotted or was excluded from the UN. Quigley (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What is written in the 1961 resolution on Tibet?

Why do you use 1951 instead of 1959 for the Tibet position? We need to know what its status was in 1959 (including different opinions if there are such), the date of exile, not in 1951. If this is cleared we can alter the article accordingly. Alinor (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The 1961 resolution can be read here, but it is more important to activists than to lawyers. The date discrepancy is because in the case of Tibet, the local government agreed to accept provincial status in 1951 (hence when their sole practical control ended), but they changed their mind, 'exiled' themselves eight years later, and rewrote their history. Actually, there are more date issues, because in addition to 1959 and 1951, you will see some Tibetan independence activists use 1950 or 1949 because they want to buttress claims to a Greater Tibetan territory. Any dates given by such outfits need to be heavily qualified. Quigley (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't been aware that there was such a thing as the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. It strikes me as kind of a joke, for the reasons described in that article, but it might be as objective as we're going to be able to be with such a contentious subject, so I wouldn't object to using it to classify the governments-in-exile.

I couldn't get the link Quigley provided to work, so here is another link to the "Tibetan self-determination" resolution. In practice, everything the UN does is informed by politics, of the Cold War variety or otherwise, so I don't see the point of distinguishing one UN action as political. One could say that the 1961 resolution is anomalous in comparison to the general trend of the UN's approach to the Tibet issue.

Quigley is correct about why Tibetan exiles would talk about their status in 1951 rather than 1959. From their perspective, the arrangement from 1951 through 1959 was not only unstable, but also illegal and invalid, and therefore irrelevant to their current status. Taking the 1950s seriously would make the story more complicated, but that's not the claim that they make. I do want to clarify the paraphrase of their claim I gave above. It should be more like, "In 1951, Tibet was an independent state; we were deposed; we are currently by rights an independent state, but we want Tibet to be governed as an autonomous part of China under a new, republican constitution." That is, the government-in-exile is not asking to be absorbed as a province-level entity (as its predecessor was in the 1950s), but instead it will dissolve itself at the same time it renounces its claimed sovereign status.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Difficult. So, we have a discrepancy between the year of exiling and the year of claimed exile (as for the alternate GiEs), but the GiE is the same government that governed in 1959 and was deposed (unlike the alternative GiEs). If we stick to the date of deposition as: "In 1959 Tibet was autonomous part of China, we were deposed, we want to be autonomous part of China" - we will skip the notion of "we withdraw from the 1951 agreement, we are independent state again - in exile" (it is between "we are deposed" and "we want to be autonomous part of China"). Alinor (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe add some footnote explanation? Alinor (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the description is tricky. I guess there are a few different ways we could go with it. I don't think there's exactly a dispute about the date of exile. CTA was exiled in 1959, but, according to them, non-exile forms of illegitimacy and aggression prevailed from 1951 - 59. I imagine they would describe that period as comparable to the Nazi occupation of Denmark, during which the king and the parliament remained in the country.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Claims to be a government-in-exile

Regarding the question of whether the Central Tibetan Administration sees itself as a government-in-exile, I think these comments from Tashi Wangdi, the Dalai Lama's political representative in the United States, in his interview with Wikinews a few years back, are informative:

DS: The Dalai Lama exists as a spiritual leader and essentially a figurehead, similar to Queen Elizabeth?

TW: As you know, we are not seeking independence, but it’s more about the future of Tibet.

DS: As an autonomous region.

TW: Yes. We are seeking a solution within the framework of the Chinese Constitution for a meaningful autonomy. Until we are able to achieve that goal, we effectively have a government in exile with a charter —a Constitution. In that charter, his holiness is effectively head of state, and the prime minister is head of government, to use ‘normal terms’. His Holiness, however, describes himself as semi-retired.

DS: He’s a symbolic head of the people, whereas Rinpoche would be an administrative head? I understand you may want to shy away from using government-oriented terminology.

TW: No, we function as a government in exile. Nothing to be shy about; we want to be open and transparent. It is nothing to hide. Elected parliament, elected leadership; the Tibetan people consider that government as their government, so there is nothing to shy away from. But as I said, in that charter His Holiness is described as head-of-state, and the elected leadership is head of government, in normal terms.

DS: What would be some of the first actions the Dalai Lama would undertake if he were to return to Tibet?

TW: He would hand over all of his responsibilities to the new leadership in Tibet. He made in very clear as far back as 1992, in a public statement, that as soon as we are able to reach an agreement with the Chinese government, the government-in-exile will be dissolved and the responsibility for managing future affairs will be carried out by Tibetans in Tibet. In other words, people like me who have no claim for leadership and responsibilities by the mere fact that in exile we have been working for Tibet; we will have no claim that we will be in some leadership role when we go back. His Holiness has made it very clear that the people in Tibet should take the responsibility.

—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Do we have any sources showing that Taleban government has moved to Quetta, Pakistan? Do we have any source showing that Taleban claim to have a "government-in-exile"? Do we have any source that the Taleban are not inside Afghanistan itself and there is no Afghan civil war and no War in Afghanistan (2001–present) part of it and no Taliban insurgency part of it - and that Taleban do not participate in these conflicts inside Afghanistan.

Unless there are such sources it isn't a "government-in-exile". Alinor (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

To clarify - Taleban is not a GiE, but a "competing authority" in a one of the List of civil wars. Alinor (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Taliban once controlled the vast majority of Afghanistan until NATO pushed them out, forcing them to re-headquarter in Quetta.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/world/asia/21quetta.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

This is a classic example of a Governtment-in-Exile. Now, had they stayed and operated 'underground' in Afghanistan, then there could be a dispute as their HQ would still be in Afghanistan, but instead they chose to relocate their HQ to a foreign state. Liu Tao (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The source shows allegations that in 2007 Pakistan government was supporting the Taleban and offering them refuge/base in Quetta. But do the Taleban claim to be a GiE? Also, having in mind the frequently changing Pakistan-Taleban relations - in the light of the War in North-West Pakistan - the question comes - is there still a Taleban base in Quetta? Alinor (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not if they claim to be a GiE, it's if they fit the definition of a GiE. Besides, have you got a source of them saying they're not a GiE? I'm a male, but I don't tell people I'm a male, does that mean I'm not a male? As for a Taliban Base in Quetta or not, have you got any sources considering the contrast? Until you do have a source saying the Taliban are no loner HQed in Quetta, only source we got to go on says they are. Liu Tao (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, they have to "claims to be a country's legitimate government" (first sentence of the lead). Also, the source shows that Quetta maybe is important base, but not that it is "the main" base or the "seat of the government-in-exile" or something like that. I don't see anything in that source to show that Taleban are something else than insurgent group and major participant in the Afghanistan civil war. Alinor (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"NATO officials and Western diplomats in Afghanistan have grown increasingly critical of Pakistan for allowing the Taliban leaders, commanders and soldiers to operate from their country, which has given an advantage to the insurgency in southern Afghanistan. In September, Gen. James L. Jones, then NATO’s supreme commander, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Quetta remained the headquarters of the Taliban movement. "

Apparently the NATO thinks so. And aye, they claim to be the country's legitimate government, virtually all GiEs claims to be 'a country's legitimate government'. Tis a reason called why they're 'GiE's, despite being kicked out they still claim their own legitimacy. Liu Tao (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so this old source shows that Quetta is maybe Taleban headquaters. And they obviously make "problems" in Afghanistan. But do they claim to be a GiE? I don't know if after being kicked-out, but continuing to resist NATO/ANA and cause "trouble" the Taleban still engage in maintaining state-like institutions (regardless if in-exile or not), etc. - or they reverted to "guerrilla" and "insurgent" group structure? Alinor (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The RoC does not claim to be a GiE yet it is placed on here. I do not want another RoC GiE or not battle, but it is not if they are a GiE or not, it's if the claim is verifiable. If there's a claim or reference of them being a GiE, we put it up. If the claim is disputed, then we label it as disputed. Here's two more sources I can find, both dated 2009:

[1]

[2]

Liu Tao (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

RoC doesn't claim to be GiE, but it claims to be a government of China and it obviously is in 'partial exile' (as it controls small part of the whole territory claimed) - these two make it a GiE - thus it can only be debated whether it is a GiE or a rump state. RoC/Taiwan, PLC/Hamas and SADR (but SADR "headquaters" are also in exile) are examples of "rumps"/GiEs where they control relatively small part of the claimed territory - that's why they appear in both lists.

My issues with listing the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan as GiE were the following:

• Do the Taleban control any territory in Afghanistan (e.g. "rump"/civil war) or work as "insurgent/Khandahar secessionist"
• Does the Taleban structure continue to operate like a state government or not (i.e. RoC does)
• Where is the Taleban "headquaters" - in exile or in Afghanistan

OK, so these two sources (and especially the larger PDF) give the following impression - most importantly they are referred to multiple times as "government" (refering to their current status, not pre-2001) - so we have to list them either in GiE or rump or in both. For the headquaters Quetta is again mentioned, but this is not so important. For control of territory they seem more like "insurgent/Khandahar secessionist".

So, I agree to list them in the GiE article (not in rump state because they lack actual control - they are already listed in historical states), but the problem is how and where. They had previous control, but they also have active current insurgent activities. Also, there the problem that they were deposed as "Afghanistan government", but it's not obvious whether they currently claim the whole of Afghanistan or only souther part of it. I propose to put them together with Tibet and to describe the above ambiguities. Alinor (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as 'partially in exile'. Your government is either located in a foreign territory or not. If it is located in its own territory, it is not a rump state. The fine line between a rump stat and a GiE is the location of the government. A rump state's government remains in its own territory, a GiE's is abroad. If that's the case, we can say that the PRC's also 'partially in exile', they claim Taiwan as part of China, but they do not control it, therefore they are also 'partially in exile' as they lack control over all of China. You can't use the standard of 'relatively small' either, as what's 'relatively small' can be largely contested. Personally speaking, rump states shouldn't be on here. If rump states are on here, unless they're contested on GiE's, they should be removed and placed in the rump state article. Liu Tao (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"If it is located in its own territory, it is not a rump state." - No, exactly when it's on its own territory, but doesn't control the WHOLE of it - then it's a rump state. Such are RoC, SADR, PLC/Hamas.

"Your government is either located in a foreign territory or not." - in some cases the government is located on foreign territory, but controls (part of) the claimed/own territory (SADR). In other cases the government is located on its claimed/own territory, but it doesn't control it - such are some of the "alternative" and "insurgent/secessionist" cases and the State of Palestine.

"A rump state's government remains in its own territory, a GiE's is abroad." - so RoC, PRC, PLC/Hamas - all of these are located in their claimed territory, but don't control the whole. SADR headquarters are located outside of the claimed territory, but controls part of it.

So the issue is not so clear cut. And these borderline cases are something like 'partially in exile' (this may not be the proper term, but the fact is that they are not "classical-in-exile")

The problem is what is the extent of overlap between "rump" and "GiE". Obviously rump is something like 'partially in exile', but here comes the question whether states that control most of their claimed territory with the exception of a tiny part are "rump" or not (e.g. whether "rump" covers the whole range between "all territory under control"/regular case and "no territory under control"/GiE - or covers only the part of this range closer to GiE). The special cases that we have are ("small/significant" and such are of course debatable - below is given per IMHO):

• PRC - headquarters in the traditional capital, controls most of the territory without RoC-controlled part. If rump is defined as closer to GiE, then PRC is not even a rump and definitely not a GiE. If rump is defined more broadly - it's a rump. It would be a very big stretch to arrange it as GiE - I wouldn't go as far.
• RoC/Taiwan - headquarters not in the traditional capital (but still in claimed territory), controls small%-but-otherwise-significant part of its claimed territory. Definitely a rump. Maybe a GiE - I know there is a big debate above about this - there are arguments for "it's a GiE" - based not in the traditional capital/deposed from there, controls only small% part of the claimed territory; there are arguments against "it's a GiE" - based in its claimed territory, controls significant (albeit small%) part of it. Some sources mention it as GiE, right?
• PLC/Hamas - headquarters in its designated territory (designated for the PNA/PLC per Oslo Accords), not in the designated capital, controls the smaller (nevertheless significant) of the two parts of the designated territory. Definitely a rump. Maybe a GiE (similar arguments to RoC/Taiwan)
• SADR - headquarters outside of its claimed territory (thus not in the traditional capital), controls small (and insignificant) part of the claimed territory. Definitely a rump. Maybe a GiE - arguments for "it's a GiE" - headquarters outside of the claimed territory, controls small insignificant part of the claimed territory; arguments against - controls a part (regardless how small/insignificant) of the claimed territory, so not "fully in exile". Some sources mention it as GiE.
• PNA - headquarters in its designated capital (designated for the PNA per Oslo Accords), controls the bigger part of the two parts of the designated territory. Definitely a rump (PLC/Hamas controlled part is significant). It would be a big stretch to arrange it as GiE - I wouldn't go as far.
• SoP - headquarters in its claimed territory, but doesn't control any of it (so the capital issue is irrelevant). Definitely not a rump (it has no control over any territory). Maybe a GiE - arguments for "it's a GiE" - doesn't control any of the claimed territory; arguments against "it's a GiE" - headquaters in the claimed territory, PNA related to the PLO that is related to SoP (but PNA itself is not related to SoP or vice versa) operates in the claimed territories (but they still are controlled by Israel). Some sources mention it as GiE.
• Taleban - too many questions without answer - that's why I propose to put them along Tibet - the other one with ambiguities. Alinor (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, typo. I meant, "If it is located in its own territory, it is a rump state." I dunno what's the deal with the other rumps, but reason why the RoC is on this article at all is because of the apparent claim on the RoC's GiE status, which is why we labeled it as disputed. We were just discussing on scaling back the RoC description like literally a week ago. The RoC is in this article because people consider it a GiE, not 'partially in exile'. Somebody has changed the original meaning of graying out that area. They consider the RoC a GiE because they believe that Taiwan is not a part of the RoC, therefore the RoC government is effectively in foreign territory and thus a GiE. We even stated the contrary where others who consider Taiwan part of the RoC sees the RoC not a GiE, but a rump state. Our description has a clear cut distinction between the two terms. There's no BS about whether if it's 'partially in exile' or not, it's either is or is not.

The same deal is with the Islamic Emirate, if their government or HQ is in Quetta, then they're a GiE. We can put it up as disputed if it's a rump or GiE. Liu Tao (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

rump/GiE are not clear cut. What are definitions were these two are clear cut? Please apply these definitions to the above examples to check if they give 'clear cut' result in all cases.

About Taleban - I agree to include them in the table, but unless we have sources showing what they currently claim (the whole Afghanistan or only Khandahar) they can go in "ambigous" section together with Tibet. Also important is the question whether they control some territory in Afghanistan. Alinor (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The definitions are pretty clear, one's in exile the other's not. I've already provided you the definitions many times over. Rumps are those who continues to exist with control over a smaller bit of their original territory. GiEs are those whose government is forced to be moved abroad into foreign territory. You're either a GiE or a rump, you can't be both. People still considers the RoC a GiE despite it still controlling some Fukienese islands, reason they give is because the location of the government is not in Fukien but in Taiwan, and because they claim Taiwan is not a part of the RoC, the RoC Government is effectively in foreign territory therefore a GiE.

The Islamic Emirate shouldn't be going into the ambiguous section at all. Ambiguous section was created because the claims by the CTA was an 'ambiguous' one. However that is not the case with the Taliban, who has a pretty clear goal of re-establishing the Islamic Emirate. They are clearly a desposed government. If a dispute is present, then we can gray it out and label is "disputed" just as it is done with the ROC. There's generally 2 reasons why a political group should be listed on this article: 1 is because they fit the definitions; 2 is they are cited and referred to as government-in-exiles. Liu Tao (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The ambiguous in the Taleban case is that the sources you provided imply that currently they only strive to rule Khandahar/Pashtun region and not the whole of Afghanistan. If they aim for Khandahar region only - then it's a secessionist scenario. If they aim for the whole of Afghanistan - then it's classical deposed GiE scenario. The part with active insurgent operations INSIDE claimed territory is also giving a degree of ambiguity (but since the headquarters are outside this is not so important).

About RoC/Taiwan. This thing with "Taiwan is not part of RoC" is debatable and the other "Controlling few minor islands makes you not a GiE, but a rump (regardless if the headquarters are in these minor islands or in foreign land)" too. And I don't think these two are the reasons for GiE label.

I think sources label RoC/Taiwan as GiE because A] it doesn't control the traditional capital (and as weak second reason -B] it controls small% of the claimed territory). If it was based in Beijing it wouldn't be so commonly called GiE (regardless of how big territory it controls). Anyway, let's not argue about Taiwan.

Would you apply your rump/GiE definition to SADR and PLC/Hamas? Alinor (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition

Its logical that a government-in-exile has to have been a government not in exile first.

Any government formed by former state citizens in exile does not legally constitute a government-exile. See here http://fichasmarra.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/recognition-of-states-and-governments-in-international-law/ Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We're having an issue with definition again. We currently have 2 conflicting definitions, one includes the requirement of disposition, the other does not. Please discuss below. Liu Tao (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I find the current definition concise and clear, and I don't think the recent changes improved it. The first change about the State of New York definitely needs to go (surely the state of NY didn't invent the concept), and the second one is not strictly true for all the governments in exile. For instance, the Free France government was not "pre-existing" as it was established in the UK, but claimed to be the legitimate French government. Laurent (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Our current definition of a GiE derived from Princton University does not include the disposition part. What we can, actually we should do however is to just list and cite both definitions. Liu Tao (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I tried to do with the reorganization of the tables - the "alternative" tables include two columns - "claimed exile (deposition)" and "exile proclamation" so that the three types of GiEs are shown:

• Government was not-in-exile before, deposed, and continued to operate afterwards in-exile. Current GiE is pure "deposed" GiE - merged columns with a single date
• A government not-in-exile was deposed in the past. Current GiE claims to be its successor, without having a DIRECT link to the deposed government (but because of other reasons) - two columns with two dates
• No previous government not-in-exile, no deposition. Current GiE is pure "alternative" GiE - first column is dashed, second column has one date.

Maybe this should be somehow described in a separate section. Alinor (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem that Koakhtzvigad is interested in is about Palestine. It is a case of pure "alternative" GiE - no deposition/previous control. Alinor (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What Princeton University cites is based on US legislation enacted to cope with Allied support to governments-in-exile during the Second World War. As it happens, or so it seems to me, that decision was originally rendered in the State of New York.

Forming a government is not so simple because it has to retain some semblance of state authority, i.e. embody officers of the state. This was defined in most European Constitution, and De Gaulle happened to be an officer of the state as well as an military officer, the two should not be confused.

"Palestinian government in exile" as it turns out was completely invalid, so not even a subject of discussion here and can be safely stricken off from the list. It failed in so many ways to be formed in legal, conventional or even common sense ways that to call it any sort of "government" would be an insult to everyone's intelligence.

The definition of a government-in-exile is fairly simple: territory, population, and will to return.

• a government-in-exile has to maintain a claim to a territory through property claims, even if ancestral. The longer the claim is maintained, the better since it supports the retained hope for restoration of the claim.
• though not culturally homogeneous due to disporisation, they need to be politically representative of some defined national popular movement for return.
• the intention of the members of the government-in-exile, or their ancestors, that begun as citizens or residents of the territory is to re-establish to a discrete geopolitical entity

As it happens the Jews at the turn of the 20th century the Jews had the longest outstanding claim to territory that was shared by the vast majority of their diasporised populations despite significant religious, cultural and economic disparity among the communities. While the Zionist (Tzionim) Congress may not have represented every type of Jew in the diaspora, it represented a very significant part of it, particularly before the Russian Revolution. The will to return was widely known and publicized throughout every area where Jews ever resided during their diasporisation. Many had made attempts to return during the last 1,000 years since the virtual extermination of Jewish communities in the former Northern and Judea kingdoms territories during the Crusades. One problem is that there is no provision for Jews to form a government-in-exile for theological reasons, although as I understand it community 'courts' were maintained on Baghdad and other communities until European Renaissance. The secularized Zionist movement was the first such movement that was free to form a government-in-exile due to their lack of religiosity. Its a less usual case than most governments-in-exile, particularly since non-monarchical governments (i.e. those not based on a court system) are a modern creation, and with the exception of perhaps Tibet lack a theological aspect. This doesn't change the definition above.

Now you are going to ask for references. Give me a couple of days to look them up, because they are going to be found not in international law, which has recently been rewritten due to the Kosovo declaration, but because of the historic precedents that need to be identified. However, one of them is there, the US State of New York that is representative of the United States.

However, I see no problem with Alinor's suggestion either.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, seriously? We are not going to get into a debate here on if the PLO is a government-in-exile or not. Wikipedia is on verifiability, if we have a source referring or claiming something as a GiE, we put it up. In the case with PLO, even they refer to themselves as GiE. Personally I somewhat favour Alinor's suggestion, though there may be fighting whether a particular GiE should be in the second or last category. Liu Tao (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

So, should I understand that we need a second column for all tables and/or a description note somewhere? Alinor (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, I was thinking we reorganise the article into these 3 categories. Liu Tao (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article is becoming a list, which it should not be. If you want to do a List of governments in exile, you can add there an explanation of the various ways in which various political groupings style themselves GiE.

This article should try to define the subject in terms of international law given it is an international law subject, and not in terms of specific, and it seems to me politicised POV, interpretations. Fortunately or unfortunately international law may not suit every editor's political world view, but thats what law is about.

To me there are several common sense statements that can be made about the term even before I provide sources (since it seems no one else will).

• GiE are extraterritorial. (Partial control of territory qualifies them as an opposition group)
• GiE are temporary in their intention
• GiE claims own legitimacy (right to govern by law) and illegitimacy of the government-in-state (GiS) (legal term - government in situ)
• GiE lawful authority is external to the GiS, and widely recognised as such
• GiE laws are binding on the popular majority by practice
• GiE popular majority has political agenda based on self-identification defined by GiE
• GiE upholds a declared and verifiable territorial claim of the population
• GiE have constitutional (leadership) and administrative functionality of GiS with the capacity to govern successfully over time
• GiE are recognised at least by the government of aid (GoA)

The above seems to be comprehensive, but I look forward to discussion Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Koakhtzvigad, some of these seem dubious. Also, it seems you constructed these in such a way that you can remove particular GiEs from the list. I don't think we need to add all this.

The problem is that there are only so many badly edited and referenced articles that I can contribute to. The above is drawn from various interpretations in international law, but to put it into an article I would need to 'negotiate' with for example Liu Tao who seeks an article defending his position on Tawan. And yet, not every GiE so proclaimed fits the legal parameters Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Liu Tao, the 3 categories I described above are about the GiEs themselves. But the article is currently organized around a mixture of this (GiE type) and the type of territory the GiEs claim - state, non-self-governing territory, sub-state territory. I agree that it could be a better way to organize it, but we need to take both aspects (GiE type, territory type) into account (and then it gets more complicated, because there are two types for each territory - type currently and type-as-the-GiE-wants-it-to-be). I propose that we add a second date column in all tables (at least for consistency) - and if someone comes with an comprehensive idea for reorganization (maybe in a sandbox space) - we can see it and discuss). But I don't have idea for better organization currently. Alinor (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I know about the state and sub-state classifications. Your classifications would work for state-level GiEs. As for the sub-states, we can just maintain the current sub-state classifications for now: ousted sub-state govs; separatist movements; and annexed territory. Liu Tao (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

But if we do as you say the only change will be a split of the "Alternative governments of current states" table (4 GiEs) into two tables with 2 GiEs each. Everything else will remain the same.

Or you suggest that we merge "Deposed governments of current states" with "Alternative governments of current states" tables - and keeping the distinction visible trough the two date columns? (e.g. merged columns for current "Deposed governments of current states" GiEs) This seems doable to me - we will have to change the description paragraph of the section of course. Alinor (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

The wording in the introduction is based on this case, which was tried at the 2nd Circuit of Appeals Court in Manhattan.

After the German conquest in 1940 plaintiff, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, established a government-in-exile in England which the United States recognized as the de jure government of Holland. By promulgation of a royal decree plaintiff purported to seize, and designate itself owner in trust of, all securities belonging to Netherlands domiciliaries in order to conserve their rights in the event of German confiscation. The German occupation government later confiscated four bonds which ultimately came into defendant's possession in the United States. Plaintiff sued for the bonds and defendant, acting only as stakeholder, interpleaded another claimant. On appeal from a judgment for defendant, held, reversed. Since the royal decree could not conflict with any legitimate exercise of authority by the occupying power and does not conflict with American public policy, it must be given effect and the State of the Netherlands recognized as the owner of these bonds. State of the Netherlands v. Federal Reserve Bank, 201 F.2d 455 (2d Cir. 1953). Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Scaling down RoC description

There is way too much stuff in the RoC box. It's almost as if people are trying to justifying each specific viewpoint with all of these treaties and other legal nonsense. We don't have to put in the evidence supporting the arguments for each POV, we only need to put in the arguments themselves. Anything else is redundant. People think RoC is a GiE because they view Taiwan as not a part of the RoC, therefore the RoC Government is located in foreign territory hence GiE. People think RoC is not GiE because they view Taiwan as a part of the RoC, therefore the RoC Government is not a GiE because it is located within its own territory. That's all we need to put down. Okay, maybe a bit more than I've just given, with some variation, but we definitely don't have to go into as much detail as it is now. It's too clustered and is becoming very difficult to read. The note box is for a further clarification, but when you put too much in it it becomes difficult and slow to read. If people want more detail, link a political status of Taiwan into the description for 'further information'. Liu Tao (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps something with links to the relevant pages, and a brief note about why its status is disputed is enough. Ngchen (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid it might lead to another edit war tho. T-1000 (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can place a note in a not read version using the appropriate script to bring people to the consensus that we form here, to justify why it has become less long winded, and links to the page that you have provided, for linking to the page you provided allows this page to maintain the WP:NPOV of this page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Problem is still what to move where though. What ideas have you got? Liu Tao (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the line for the RoC is a GiE is appropriate. In the notes, it should be stated something like "GiE status is disputed, see political status of Taiwan". The link to that page, and potentially others such as Free Area of the Republic of China and others, can move the issues with those specific subjects as they relate to the RoC to those pages rather then having them continue to be fought out here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I mean aye, depending on the POV RoC is GiE appropriate. But because other POVs put it as not, which is why the dispute would have to be noted. Now, I'm only pushing for the POVs to be noted, not the 'evidence' itself. I mean the POV for RoC being a GiE will be listed regardless of a dispute or not (we'd have to explain how it's a GiE as with all others), but because there IS a dispute, the opposite view would have to be noted as well. Just a noting, no need to go further than 'people don't think because'. Liu Tao (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Then no links should be provided to article's about why said dispute exists just that there is a dispute is enough, just "RoC's status as a a GiE is disputed". --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Aye, but if you don't touch up on why it's disputed, you'd have to at least provide a link. If you do explain why it's disputed, providing a link or not falls either way. Liu Tao (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Then move the disputed statement with link in the notes section, replacing all that is currently there. If I hear no objections by 18JAN, I think we can all agree that of active users, we have reached an consensus. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Question is to what we put in the notes section, how to write the 'disputed statement'. Both PoVs are heavily disputed. Liu Tao (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Just stating that its status as a GiE is disputed should be sufficient, without stating the specifics of the differeing POVs. That is what the linked political status page is for in the first place. The more neutral point of view we can have on this page, the better. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is that give us an example of how you'd write this. Liu Tao (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You should put your version on the talk page and after it gains consensus, it can be edited in. T-1000 (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with T-1000 here, your version's a bit bland, though I like it, it nice and simple, no more paragraphs. However, it by no means explains how the ROC is a GiE, in fact it points to the contrary by stating that it is a state and governing territories. To me however I see two possibilities, we can retain your edit and footnote the original stuff we edited out. Either that or we can rewrite it, here is my version:

The Republic of China (ROC) lost the bulk of its territory of mainland China in 1949 as a result of the Chinese Civil War. Since then, the ROC has relocated its government to Taipei. The status of the ROC as a government-in-exile is disputed, however. Proponents reason that because Taiwan is not a part of the ROC, the ROC is located in foreign territory therefore effectively a government-in-exile. Opponents claim the opposite, arguing that Taiwan is indeed a part of the ROC and the government is still located in its own territory, therefore it is not a government-in-exile but a rump state. For further information, see political status of Taiwan.

I mean seriously, I copied and pasted the original edit (wikicode wise) into my document editor and I had 3 full pages. We definitely do not need that much. This is already plenty. If it's still too much I can kill it a bit, but for me this is as much as that will be needed. Liu Tao (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the shortened version above is best, since it summarizes the situation without being verbose. Ngchen (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with whatever version we come up with that reaches consensus, as long as RoC is included, and the note is brief (and the footnote is not taking up the space in the notes section). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, we have many useful sources for that section, are we just gonna get rid of it? T-1000 (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that those things should be worked into political status of Taiwan if they aren't there already. Ngchen (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources may be useful, but they are not needed for the situation. Liu Tao (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe we need to come up with a consensus statement to reduce the notes regarding the Republic of China down to two to three sentences, and perhaps spinout the remaining content into a footnote, new article, or merge the information into the Political status of Taiwan article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Liu Tao's version is the best one. T-1000 (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I left the part that addresses directly how the RoC does or does not fit the definition of a GiE. The rest was arguing about politics and whether or not the RoC 'should' fit the definition. That part I removed.Readin (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Palestine

There are two entries for Palestine. I see both are highlighted as "disputed cases", but no evidence of a dispute. Are they normally classified as governments in exile? Nightw 13:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the dispute may arise from the political status of the Palestine. Like RoC, some consider the land not as theirs to claims, while as others believe that they are a rump state. For this article, it has been the consensus (and please correct me if I am wrong) that if someone (who can be supported by a reliable source) has stated that group X is a government in exile, whether or not group X say they are a government in exile, then they are included in this article. Therefore, disputes as to whether a group is a GiE, a rump state, or another definition that does not fall under this article's inclusion criteria will always arise due to the very nature of what a GiE is, as not all parties will recognize it being as such depending on their own POV (irregardless of how neutral we may try to be (we are human and fallible after all)). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

But there are no sources (reliable or otherwise) cited here that claim these entries are in fact governments in exile. They're completely unsourced additions. That's why I'm curious as to how these have come to be added, without evidence to support their inclusion, and how it is that they're highlighted as disputed cases, without any evidence of a dispute cited. I'll take a look through the edit history and try and find the editor who added them, and see if I can get any answers... Nightw 15:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If you believe as a an objective editor, not attempting to push a POV, that the content is factually inaccurate, tag it with the { { Fact | Date = Month Year } } (remove spacing to use) template, and possibly (but not required) begin a discussion to build a consensus to remove the content. If no reliable source reference(s) is provided to support its claim to being a GiE then after a reasonable amount of time, and if there is no objection from any other active editors of this article, then remove the content. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Night w, there are no "two entries for Palestine". There is one entry for the State of Palestine (SoP) and one entry for Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC). SoP and PLC are unrelated to each other, as you are well aware of from our numerous discussions on related subjects on multiple of the Palestine-related pages.

• PLC/Hamas is one of the few examples of being on the border between "rump" and "GiE" (you can read more about that in the Afghanistan section above) - like RoC/Taiwan and SADR. It is such borderline case, because it still performs the PNA functions in part of the territory before the split (thus sliding to the "rump" side), but at the same time it doesn't perform these functions in the administrative seat before the split (thus sliding to the "GiE" side). If you ask me - this case is more of a "rump" like North Korea/South Korea (e.g. both claiming each other and controlling significant parts of the territory) - but it was added, because of "Gaza disengagement pushing" (e.g. trying to portray Gaza as "independent" state or whatever) all around Wikipedia.
• SoP case is more special. It is not disputed that it's a GiE (you know the source that says the PLO-EC was taked with performing GiE functions by the PNC until the PCC decides to form another GiE. - Sayigh, Yezid (1999). Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National Movement, 1949–1993 (Illustrated ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 624. ISBN 0198296436, 9780198296430. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) "The Palestinian National Council also empowered the central council to form a government-in-exile when appropriate, and the executive committee to perform the functions of government until such such time as a government-in-exile was established.") Do you have a source showing that a separate GiE was established by the PCC or that some other government of SoP was established? I think you don't. The confusion with SoP comes from two facts: 1. that PNC/PLO-EC (its legislature/GiE) meet inside the SoP claimed territory, but don't control any of it (all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory is under Israel occupation) 2. that the unrelated PNA interim administration (it is related to the PLO, but not to SoP. Both SoP-1988 and PNA-1994 are established by the PLO, but there is no document linking the two entities - of course by sharing the same president and representatives abroad, by having the same goal - to end Israel occupation, by using generic "Palestine" term without further specification, etc. - they "seem" to overlap in practice - and that's why many people get confused) performs some governmental functions inside parts of the SoP claimed territory (after permission by Israel to operate in 2.7%-to-27.8% of it; these areas are non-contiguous; the PNA doesn't claim sovereignty over them or statehood), but again the ultimate control over all of this territory is held by Israel as the occupying force. So, there are some similarities with SADR - SoP "headquarters" are in territory that it doesn't control (like SADR "headquarters" in Sahrawi refugee camp in Algeria, administered by SADR, but inside Algerian territory) - but also there are differences - SoP "headquarters" are in territory that it claims (SADR doesn't claim Algerian territory) and SoP doesn't control any territory (unlike SADR that controls the Free Zone (region) of the Western Sahara it claims). So, SoP is unique not only in being the only entity recognized as state without having control over any territory (e.g. state in terms of Constitutive theory and not of Declarative theory), but also in being the only GiE that meets inside its claimed territory without having the ultimate control over it/while this territory is still occupied by a foreign state. Thus some people get uneasy to call it "in exile" (yes, it really is an unique case), but I don't see any better term for a government that doesn't control any territory. Alinor (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's all really great, but unfortunately it's OR until you provide a source to support it. Not a source that claims that the central council was empowered to form a government-in-exile when appropriate. Not a source that claims that the executive committee was empowered to perform the functions of a government until a government-in-exile was established. Has the central council formed one? Or is the executive committee still performing in its place? Who knows. The source doesn't say. You need multiple reliable sources that state, unequivocally and explicitly, that the State of Palestine is a government-in-exile. Until such sources are provided, there is no way that this entry can be remain. 07:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Night w, we have a source showing that the PCC is empowered to form a GiE and that until that time the PLO-EC performs the functions of GiE. We don't have anything else. If you think that PNC has formed another government (or that PCC has already formed another GiE) - please find a source saying so. Unless you find a suitable source this entry can not be removed. It can be marked as "debatable/gray", but not removed, because we have a source supporting its inclusion. Alinor (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Read the quote again. It says that the executive committe was empowered to perform, not that it does, and also says that it was empowered to perform the functions of a government, not a "government-in-exile" as you say.

"The Palestinian National Council also empowered the ... executive committee to perform the functions of government until such such time as a government-in-exile was established."

So, according to this very source that you've somehow used to support the claim that the State of Palestine is a government-in-exile,—if the executive committee does function as the governing body of the State of Palestine, then—a government-in-exile has not yet been established.

If you don't have anything else, then it'll need to be removed from the article until such a time as an adequate set of reliable sources can verify its inclusion. And that second entry to do with Palestine will also need to be canned on similar grounds; it's currently completely unreferenced. Nightw 15:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The full quote is "The Palestinian National Council also empowered the central council to form a government-in-exile when appropriate, and the executive committee to perform the functions of government until such such time as a government-in-exile was established" Do you expect that the authors of the book will repeat the full 'government-in-exile' after each two-three words? Don't be silly. This is of course acknowledged in [3] ("The Executive Committee of the PLO, in practice the "government in exile" of the State of Palestine") and [4] ("A government-in-exile, having no effective control in the territory and not having had previous control, ...").

About removing PLC/Hamas - if nobody objects, OK, after all it's a rump (albeit "exiled" from its original headquarters). Alinor (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, "government" is the international shorthand for "government in exile"... No ambiguity there... Don't be silly. In any case, the source doesn't say that it functions as anything, only that it was empowered to function as something. That source isn't viable as it doesn't make the same claim you do. The other two sources refer to the PLO, not the State of Palestine, as a government in exile, and this is probably more correct. These sources could be used if the entry was changed State of Palestine → Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Nightw 07:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No, usage of "government-in-exile...government...government-in-exile" clearly shows that in all three cases they mean the same thing - it's just unwieldy to repeat this after every two-three words.

"The other two sources refer to the PLO, not the State of Palestine, as a government in exile" - what do you mean? One of the sources says "PLO, GiE of SoP". The other source is about the SoP UNESCO application and the relevant remark is about its government. Yes, the sources don't say "SoP is GiE", they say "SoP has GiE" (and this is obvious even without the sources provided, but anyway). This is the same for other entries in the list such as "Belarusian National Republic", "Monarchy of Iran", "Monarchy of Laos", etc. Not all entries have "government/administration" in their names - because some of them refer to the state that the GiEs claim to represent. So, there is no point in renaming the entry from SoP to PLO-EC. Alinor (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Your mind-boggling interpretations of sources have been shown to be faulty a number of times in the past. For what you want to verify, the two later sources are passable, the first is clearly not. Adequately source the entry and there isn't a problem. And unless you can find sources for the second entry, it'll need to be removed. Nightw 08:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

How many times should we return to the PLC/Hamas entry? I already agreed (18:36, 1 February 2011) to remove it if nobody else objects.

You are the one making mind-boggling interpretations (and this one here is the latest example; the other that comes quickly to my mind is your insistence that Guyana recognizes SoP since before 2011 and your twisting interpretations of its official statement made in 2011) and I don't know when I have been shown to be incorrect? No agreement on a RS/N for disqualification of source on WP:CIRCULAR grounds (as I claimed) is not "shown to be faulty".

If you are fine with the two latter sources, then OK, let's consider this issue resolved. We keep SoP entry and remove PLC/Hamas entry. Alinor (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

...When you replace the citation tags with citations, then the issue is resolved. Nightw 05:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The citations are those provided here above. You don't have any objections, right? Alinor (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, just that there is none in the article. Nightw 07:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

ROC description

Is there anyone that objects to scaling down the ROC's description Per Liu Tao's version? There have been no discussion for a while. If there is indeed consensus we can shorten it. T-1000 (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the majority of what is in there can be placed in a footnote with the main section only containing the see Political Status of Taiwan wikilink. This preserves a link as to why some editors believe that the listing is dubious without deleting the content outright. Honestly, IMHO, it does not belong in the list space.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If there is no objection within a few days, I will replace the current version with Liu Tao's version. T-1000 (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that description is to long as well. Why are we not taking the footnote idea seriously? Why does the Taiwan listing, or any listing for that matter greater than three brief sentences? Why can't we move the bulk into footnotes? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard any objects to moving the entire present description to a footnote section. If there are no objects by 28MAR11 (and I am sure there will be), I will move the current content into a footnote. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan

Bakiyev still insists he's the president, from what I gather. Should Kyrgyzstan be added? -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian Government-in-Exile in Bangkok

Shouldnt the Norwegian Government-in-Exile in Bangkok be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.134.57 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources to indicate that this in fact exist? A quick search of of Government-In-Exile of Norway shows that during World War II the government departed to London. But nothing of one in Bangkok. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm intrigued. Is there an address anywhere? Nightw 02:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Google returns lots of hits provided the search term is in Norwegian or Thai: "Den norske eksilregjering i Bangkok" or "รัฐบาลพลัดถิ่นนอร์เวย์" -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.138.50 (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, should we have a discussion period before the entry is added? And what about the flag icon? They use a different Norwegian flag, afaics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.132.27 (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:HOAX; I found no english languages reliable source references indicating a GiE of Norway in Thailand. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I read your link about "reliable sources" all the way down to where it claims "mainstream news media are mostly reliable". I will read the rest together with all the new material having emerged this morning about the Waziri tradition of hasty burials at sea, just as soon as I can stop laughing. Right now I can't breath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.189.176.46 (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Provisional Government of the Republic of Cantonia

Any reliable source(s) for this (aside from a claimed website)? If not found soon, it should be deleted as a few others were before. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but based in what can be verified. Tag the statement with a Template:Fact tag, and if nothing is given by the end of the month from a reliable source, remove it per WP:VER & WP:BURDEN. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

One month is too generous for an obvious hoax; I have removed it and initiated an AfD discussion. Quigley (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the trickiness and possible controversial nature of GiEs, I was giving leeway due to WP:AGF, for the adding editor. If no reliable source was provided, then I was going to delete. Either way, any new re-addition falls under WP:BURDEN. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Replace Republic of China with Republic of Taiwan

ROC is clearly not a GIE, because ROC never declared independence from China, therefore cannot consider herself to be on foreign soil within the context of the Chinese Civil War. Therefore, replace ROC with the ROT. I did it for you. Phead128 (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

RoC does not call itself Republic of Taiwan. There are reliable sources that verify that RoC is considered, by some, a GiE. Other references consider it a Rump State, this is further expanded upon in the linked articles in its listing. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources. If ROC is a GIE, then PRC is a GIE. Both have equal legitimacy to be labeled as a GIE in stalemate Chinese civil war. If ROC is not removed as a GIE, then PRC will have to be listed as well, no dispute!05:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)108.7.241.222 (talk)

Tsai Ing Wen is a reliable source. T-1000 (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:CON. There is established consensus that RoC belongs on this in some form. It is debatable in what form that it should take, but there have been sufficient multiple RSs to support its inclusion in this list. I have so far not found significant reliable sources static that the PRC is a GiE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Disputed status

I have reverted the removal of ROC. As stated by the notes, the state's status of whether it is a rump state or government in exile is disputed. The listing is supported by multiple reliable sources, therefore its inclusion passes WP:VER. Moreover, please see WP:TRUTH; it doesn't matter what our personal opinions of the state's status are, it matters what can be verified.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

World War II

It seems to me that it would make more sense to date the World War II governments in exile by when the government moved rather than when the invasion against the country began. Does anyone agree? Eomund (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that reordering, as long as the date of departure can be verified. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I also concur, although if it occurred within the same month as the invasion, then that should suffice too. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Libya

Can Gudaffi's government of Libya be considered a government-in-exile?--89.241.236.167 (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• No, as they were not in exile.--Yopie (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion or not?

Was pondering if the Confederate government of Kentucky should also be added as with the other one already listed in Missouri (although the article didn't have clear dates when they did get exiled from Kentucky as it did have moments of being in it). That-Vela-Fella (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan community of Nagorno-Karabakh

Should we include this NGO in the list? It doesn't seem to be official branch of the Azerbaijan government (unlike Georgian exiled administrations) - it's more like an association of people expelled from the region dealing with IDP issues and similar activities. Japinderum (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Got a source describing it as a gie, Al? Nightw 14:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see such source, that's why I suggest not listing it. Japinderum (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I must also agree, this should not be listed as such. Aside from it's own website, there is nothing else I could find to support it as a GiE. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Danzig

GiE of Danzig seems to be not notable and entry is based only on one self-published source. Other entries have own articles and/or are sourced by reliable sources. "Official web" of GiE Danzig is full of some proclamations, but is without members of GiE, mode of creation, etc. It looks like soapbox of someone or micronation.--Yopie (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Are there any secondary or tertiary reliabel sources that can verify that the Government of the Free City of Danzig exists, and is notable?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have found so far a mention in an article in The Economist, dated December 20th 2001:

http://www.economist.com/node/883955

a mention in the Sydney Morning Herald; dated November 15th, 1947:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301&dat=19471115&id=CBhVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yZMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2558,1793699

a mention in the book 'Asserting Jurisdiction: International and European Legal Approaches', edited by Patrick Capps, Malcolm Evans and Stratos Konstadinidis, which mentions Danzig on page 25 and has a footnote directly referencing the Danzig G-I-E website in a footnote also on page 25:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bb0VULJ8g5MC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=danzig+government-in-exile&source=bl&ots=sZnj5ShglQ&sig=pBuLd6i1NBCU9BJyq-pLK3gqMaQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=av6LUZj_BcL1OdDHgfgF&sqi=2&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=danzig%20government-in-exile&f=false

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing these sources, they appear to be reliable. Please format them properly using Template:Cite News, or another appropriate template, and add them to the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yanukovich?

He claims to be President of Ukraine still, and resides in Rostov. isn't he eligible for this list?--DLommes (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's fair, I think the same goes for the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (which has also been overthrown and replaced with the Republic of Crimea). Charles Essie (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know Yanukovich did not form any governement in exile. He's a president in exile without a governement. --Mgar (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Exiled governments of occupied territories

The cases presented here of SADR and SOP are doubtfully relevant, since in both cases the governments are executing power on parts of their claimed territories. SADR is controlling about one third of Western Sahara (capital in Bir Lehlou), while SOP is controlling about 40% of the West Bank (capital in Ramallah). Despite their territorial claims on Southern Provinces in the first case and Judea and Samaria area+East Jerusalem in the second case, considering them "exiled" is utterly incorrect.GreyShark (dibra) 13:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done after one and a half months of no objections.GreyShark (dibra) 18:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

recent edits

Re [5]. Why is the link to 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine being removed? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Government in exile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110716170454/http://www.knc.org.uk/WKGWashingtoninEnglish.pdf to http://www.knc.org.uk/WKGWashingtoninEnglish.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Egypt

Isn't there a Turkish-based Egyptian opposition government established as an alternative to the regime of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi? Charles Essie (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Lebanon

The article on the South Lebanon Army maintains that Israel still supports a "Government of Free Lebanon" in Jerusalem since withdrawing from Lebanon in 2000. Might want to include that as one of the current governments in exile.Amyzex (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Government in exile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160701170547/http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action;jsessionid=D1CB9969C3D6F84368ACAB29F06818DA?load=detay&link=173093&newsId=173028 to http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action;jsessionid=D1CB9969C3D6F84368ACAB29F06818DA?load=detay&link=173093&newsId=173028

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Government in exile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150128114506/http://aao.sinica.edu.tw/download/publication_list/en/109.pdf to http://aao.sinica.edu.tw/download/publication_list/en/109.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620071351/http://ncr-iran.org/content/view/6046/ to http://ncr-iran.org/content/view/6046/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103033626/http://www.cpr-government.de/ to http://www.cpr-government.de/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120626202256/http://library.stanford.edu/depts/ssrg/africa/gabon.html to http://library.stanford.edu/depts/ssrg/africa/gabon.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130531091352/http://mizzima.com/news/inside-burma/8026-burmas-exiled-government-dissolved.html to http://www.mizzima.com/news/inside-burma/8026-burmas-exiled-government-dissolved.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111210104240/http://www.tibet.net/en/index.php to http://www.tibet.net/en/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Islamic State of Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001

Wasn't the Islamic State of Afghanistan a government-in-exile during the Taliban's rule over Afghanistan?. (24.205.83.199 (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC))

Republic of China

In the Republic of China paragraph(s) on this page, I recently made some minor edits. There’s a sentence that says the Republic of China (Taiwan) (ROC) and the People’s Republic of China (China) (PROC) agree on the status of the ROC government. Later, another sentence asserts that the ROC holds a different view about it’s own status. I think that the first sentence may be wrong and considered correcting it. My reasoning to think it may be wrong is that, as far as I know, the PROC does not recognize the ROC government. However, I wanted to first see if anyone else had some input. Dbusb (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Which sentence says the ROC and the PRC agree on the status of the ROC government? --Matt Smith (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It’s in this sentence, which is immediately after citation 13: “Both the People's Republic of China government and the Republic of China government hold the latter view.” Dbusb (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please use : to indent your reply. Please see Wikipedia:Indentation for more information.

Could you explain why your are interpreting that sentence as they agree on "the status of the ROC government"? As far as I can see, according to the context, what they agree on is "the status of the island of Taiwan", not "the status of the ROC government". --Matt Smith (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about using colons for indentation! I’m a new editor, so I wasn’t aware of the need to do so.

It seems to me as if the sentence says that both the PROC and the ROC agree with the “latter view”. Above the sentence in question, the latter of the two views presented is that “the sovereignty of Taiwan [was] legitimately returned to the Republic of China at the end of [World War II].” Insofar as I know, the PROC holds the view that the sovereignty of Taiwan was not legitimately returned to the ROC at the end of WWII, which forms the basis for the PROC’s “One China” policy, its assertion that the ROC government is illegitimate, and that control of the island of Taiwan rightly belongs to the PROC. Dbusb (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Sinkiang Provincial Government Office

This entry refers to a provincial government rather than a government claiming to be sovereign. Should probably be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atla5Atla5 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Greek government in exile

It was under British protection, but it was in Cairo, not London. What would be the best way to make the distinction? john k (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

World War II fork

Hello. I have created Governments in exile of World War II as a fork of this page. I am still unsure how or even whether to shorten the content here in order to reflect this. But anyone interested can please see and check the new article. Fishal (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

For consideration: the Royal Scottish Jacobite Government

Per the Associated Press article printed in the Cincinnati Enquirer, July 27, 1978, p. E-18, as "New Englander Claims the Scottish Throne" (cleaned up from the OCR link on that page):

The NYC phone book listing for Montmartre; see "...Jacobite Govt..." about 1/3 of the way down.

Greenwich, Conn. (AP) - The man who claims the Scottish throne lives here in a two-family house with his wife, who is from Oklahoma, and a great white Samoyed dog. The Greenwich telephone directory lists him as Prince James Edward Stuart, his wife as Princess Christene. Stuart claims to be the titular head of the House of Stuart, the royal family that provided England and Scotland with several sovereigns, including Mary, Queen of Scots. He says he is also the hereditary high chief of the Jacobite government, a 6000-member secret organization that traces its roots to the supporters of King James II, a Stuart who fled England in 1688.

Prince James or “Ned,” as he is called, lives in a modest duplex at the end of a gravel driveway in the otherwise affluent town of Greenwich. “I would describe our lifestyle as middle-class royalty,” Stuart jokes. “The closest we are to reigning royals is the King of Sweden, who from time to time shows up in the tourist compartment of a train.” The dapper, mustachioed Prince of Scots came to New York City seven years ago, met and quickly married Christene Quigley of Kingfisher, Okla. Both in their 30s, the Stuarts are supported financially by the Jacobites, whose identities are kept secret because of potential political economic repercussions, Stuart says.

Stuart works in Manhattan, where he lobbies for Scottish-Americans, a job he declines to discuss. The Scottish heir claims to be descended from the eldest son of Henry Benedict, the Jacobite pretender to the British throne. Above Stuart’s dining room table hangs a miniature portrait on ivory of King James III. He also has a primitive-style brass ring, which he dates from 1400. But the 14th James, who was born in Italy, offers no other documentation of his heritage, except to say that he has Henry Benedict's letters and diaries in a safe place.

Stuart maintains ties with another exiled government: the Serene Federal Republic of Montmartre, run by a tongue-in-cheek president Barry Alan Richmond, who claims most of Manhattan, the Hudson Valley and Kennedy Airport for his country’s territory.

Does the exiled Prince of Scots expect to be king some day of his homeland, which united with England in 1707? “I have dreams about it,” Stuart says. “I fully intend to go back. But I guess my chances of becoming king are nil.”

(Quoted article ends.) Prince James also shows up as a witness on behalf of the Republic of Montmartre, in the New York Magazine's July 18, 1977, article "Ma Bell v. Montmartre: A Ruritanian Melodrama". The "Royal Scottish Jabobite Government" is listed among Montmartre's contacts in the (no-copyright) phone book listing illustrated there, with address and phone.

Whether the Jabobites should be listed as a government-in-exile, or Montmartre as a micronation, I offer to others' consideration. But surely they are no less "real" than Asgardia. – _•Raven  ^.talk 23:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Fringe theory noticeboard

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Coptic Government In Exile. FDW777 (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

the Order of Malta

The Order of Malta was removed from this page years ago (see archive), and I think that was wrong. As per its article, the full name of the order is 'Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta'. That same article says it has diplomatic relations with Malta, but not Greece (rules Rhodes) or Israel (rules part of Jerusalem). Additionally, the Order's sovereignty is arguably not dependent on claim to or control of any sovereign territory, its inherent sovereign character having been recognized since it was granted by the Pope in the middle ages; much like the Holy See itself was regarded by many as maintaining its ancient sovereignty during the late 19th/ early 20th centuries despite it controlling no territory for decades. The order currently has diplomatic relations with over half of all countries, so if it is sovereign and it controls no territory exclusively (its Rome headquarters being extraterritorial property within Italy), it must by definition be a government in exile, or a unique and similar thing that has no name; perhaps we should call it a 'country without a country' or a 'government between lands', but wouldn't that also apply to all the other GiEs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.72.193 (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Manchukuo Temporary Government

I've left the "Manchukuo Temporary Government" entry on the wiki page with major reservation. Whether the MTG should remain on the list has already been discussed by a previous talk page, but a cursory glance at the website shows references to diplomatic relations with "Ourania", "Minerva", "Counani", and "Stellaland", which are clearly self-declared micronations that undermine the validity of the MTG's already tenuous claim as a "government in exile".

KN 940 (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)