Jump to content

Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Donetsk and Luhansk

I fail to see why these entities do not belong on this list.

  • They are de facto independent and in control of their territory, in which several million people live
  • They have achieved limited international recognition, being only recognised by themselves and South Ossetia. South Ossetia is listed as a state with limited recognition, and has achieved recognition from Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Nauru
  • The lead of the article states "As of 2015 there are entities claiming independence, often with de facto control of their territory, with recognition ranging from complete non-recognition to complete recognition by all states", which clearly applies to Donetsk and Luhansk
  • These entities belong on the "Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members" section of the list.

AusLondonder (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: Please read the protracted discussions archived here before raising an issue that has been dissected, vivisected, pulped and pulverised over and over again. I do beg your pardon if my reaction seems abrupt, but I'm assuming good faith on your behalf and would suggest that you should familiarise yourself with talk page discussion protocol such as WP:EXHAUST. Thank you (and welcome to one of the tired parts of Wikipedia)! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I have searched the archives, I don't think those discussions fully consider the issue. Some are quite old when the entities were new. I fail to see the difference between Transnistria or Somaliland. Somliland is recognised by no entity, while these entities have been recognised by South Ossetia, a state with recognition from some UN members. It seems to me they unambiguously meet the criteria of a state with limited recognition. AusLondonder (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Sources discussing the functioning of Donetsk as a de facto independent state with limited recognition: 1, 2 AusLondonder (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Id have to agree here, like it or not the rebels control and maintain their share of territory. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with @AusLondonder:. Since now both de facto republics have a stable territory, either I'd agree to add them to the article or remove Somaliland, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I was involved in discussions back in 2014 and argued that we needed to give these entities time, both to see if they have established control and to be recorded in independent sources. I think they've now had that time and clearly acting state-like. There's a report here which makes a pretty good case for labelling these entities as states. The author seems pretty legit. They are recognized by South Ossetia only, placing them Non-UN member states recognized only by non-UN members. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


I agree with AusLondonder. A lot of previous discussion was at a time where these entities were much less established, and when far fewer independent sources confirmed their status. Now, there are Wikipedia:Rs confirming that these entities are unrecognized countries (for example, the three sources cited on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_People%27s_Republic. Wikipedia:Consensus elsewhere, especially on their own pages (see also here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhansk_People%27s_Republic) treats them as "unrecognized state"s. As for this page Wikipedia:Consensus can change and most recent discussion on the topic just points to old discussion/consensus, which, as I have said, is outdated. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Simply saying that it is a state is insufficient. We need to be able to demonstrate that they are often considered to meet the declarative theory of statehood. Please cite where relevant sources explicitly state that the two entities pass the test of the declarative theory of statehood. Kahastok talk 22:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Does this count? [1] [2] You have sources here to back up that these would qualify for inclusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
That second source doesn't really qualify as being from a reliable source. - SantiLak (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: I found a reference to the declarative theory in the first paper (page 2 of the PDF, 435 as numbered), but it did not appear make a judgement as to whether the theory was met in these cases. I haven't read it in full because it's quite long-winded. Is there a page reference or quote you could point me to? Thanks, Kahastok talk 18:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to read through the latest sources yet, so I have not yet formed an opinion on whether they should be added or not, but one difficulty is that it's not even clear what should be added: Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic or Novorossiya_(confederation). The former made a "Declaration of State Sovereignty of New Russia" last December [3] so the People's Republic don't appear to consider themselves to be sovereign any longer. TDL (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, folks. I guess I've been working on all of those articles consistently over the last couple of years and assumed that everyone was aware of the fact that most of the information on them is extremely dated. The Novorossiya Project was 'closed/frozen' in May, whereas (per TLD) we're struggling to find RS for the state of DPR and LPR as entities. They certainly don't exist in the form that they've been discussed as previously. The paper by Umut Özsu pre-dates even the freezing of the Novorossiya Project. I don't know how the position could have changed when we don't have any information of value as to the status of the entities being proposed for inclusion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: I'm sorry, but could you please supply your sources for a stable DPR state being maintained? At this point, the Minsk II protocols still aren't holding (losses on both sides on a daily basis), and the infrastructure is essentially barely functioning martial law. Western sources are essentially ignoring the situation. Trying to find any form of qualitative info is low to the ground. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
You have a point there, the state is anything but stable at the moment with rebel infighting present. For Somaliland I saw the one source connecting it to the Montevideo criteria for statehood is a source by Oxford by Ker-Lindsay, James (the BBC source doesn't link a thing). To me, this is the person's opinion as no international source such as the UN is saying that it indeed meet the criteria. If you are looking for a person well known in the field for his/her opinion then no, I haven't found anything other than what I showed above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Knowledgekid87 (and Super Nintendo Chalmers) for the PDF papers. They're both good refs, but I'm with SantiLak on the evaluation of globalresearch.ca as a dubious source. It's been discussed at the RSN and the NPOVN enough times for there to be consensus that most of the material from there is WP:BIASED and should be avoided. It's very much dependent on the author's status, and I'd be reticent to use it... most certainly not without INTEXT attribution. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
<reduced indent> The source I provided was not from globlaresearch.ca. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Super Nintendo Chalmers: I realise that your link is to the Alexander Cooley paper. The comment was directed to Knowledgekid87 as he'd presented two sources, the first of which is RS. Apologies for any confusion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This has been described a number of times, for example here. Since then, nothing changed. They have no stable borders because of the currently ongoing warfare, for example in Shirokino. These territories are internationally recognized as a part of Ukraine. So no, they should not be included. Indeed, perhaps one should include their union, "Novorossia" instead? But there is no answer because the status of these territories is at best controversial. The argument that Transnistria should be excluded seem to be valid. OK, let's exclude it too. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
As I said previously, either Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabah and Transnistria are removed or P.R.Donetsk and P.R.Lugansk are added, since they haven't retreated from being sovereign countries, they just signed a cease-fire deal like the one that there is between South Korea and North Korea. P.R.Donetsk and P.R.Lugansk satisfy more the criteria for statehood than Somaliland does and they satisfy the same criteria as Nagorno-Karabakh or Transnistria do. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
No objections from me to remove Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabah and Transnistria. But the North Korea is different. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Lots of objections from me to touch those. They meet all the criteria, and are not engaged in ongoing conflicts that render their purported borders unstable or fantastic. --Golbez (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Then let's keep them. The current version is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The current version, as it stands, was a consensus version arrived at the expense of EXHAUSTing editors only recently. As I noted to AusLondonder, there has been no change of any substance meriting revival of discussion (other than a couple of - now dated - 'opinion' pieces). Of course consensus can change, but only where there is strong RS and facts-on-the-ground information to back changes, not an "are we there yet?" approach because editors want to jump ahead of the sources. We're neither WP:NOT#JOURNALISM nor WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you have reasons for your opinion?-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Virtually no scholarly sources that define the the declarative theory of statehood mention any requirement that in order to meet a definition of being a state under the theory that the state cannot be engaged in armed conflict. It should not be part of the inclusion criteria, as no reliable source defining the declarative theory includes such a criterion. For example, Somaliland which we have sources stating is a state under the declarative theory also has no stable border. Its defacto eastern border with puntland and other putative entities (such as Katumo State, SSC militia forces, ect) is in a constant state of flux due to an on and off conflict with such entities.XavierGreen (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:NOR we can not judge what kind of "theory" should be used and if the theory is applicable to anything. We should only check the sources. If there are any academic books which tell literally that "X is a state", then one may have a case (I do not see it here). If there are other secondary RS claiming the opposite ("no, X is not a state"), then this is something debatable. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like, and correct me if I'm wrong, then that we can't make any determination what belongs, only if it matches other sources... and based on that, we should remove the lengthy discussion of criteria from the article? Since it's irrelevant and all that matters is outside sources? --Golbez (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
What matters is the sources, yes, but the section is actually quite short. It is badly written because it implies that we are interpreting the declarative theory. We have no business doing so. But we can accept the interpretation of sources as to whether the declarative theory is met. I've yet to see a source that makes such a determination positively in the case of Luhansk and Donetsk, unlike the other options. Kahastok talk 17:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it's fine to describe any "theories" or criteria of statehood if they were used in RS for the states noted on this page. However, the final judgement if DNR was a state belongs directly to sources. If any independent experts, rather than sides in the conflict, claim directly that "DNR is a state" (according to any reasonable criteria), that could be a reason for inclusion. If, however, other sources tell that "DNR is not a state" (for whatever reason), this is something questionable. No, we can not decide ourselves if the criteria of statehood were met by "state" X, especially since there are many different criteria in the literature. That can only be done directly by sources. I understand that a majority of secondary RS do not consider DNR, LNR or Novorossia to be a state right now. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


If we aren't going to put Donetsk and Luhansk in, then we at least need to have them in the Excluded Entities section, and clearly explain what conditions they'd need to meet to be included, and currently don't meet. Otherwise, we'll keep having this discussion. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please explain

...this edit comment. The long descriptions in the tables are hard to read - all this is doing is pulling out the ONLY comparable data-point to make it easier for readers. Why make readers wade through all those walls of text, when you can add a small column. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kahastok: (pinging). Oncenawhile (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
When I saw this go in, I thought of the last time something I remembered discussing something like this. It was a while ago, back in 2011, and it was very long-winded. Assuming that you are counting recognition by UN members, the user arguing for inclusion back then wanted a fundamentally different set of numbers.
That speaks to a first concern, I think. While these numbers are a lot more neutral than including any claimed state as was proposed in 2011, there is still a question about whether the measure should include e.g. South Ossetia's recognition of Abkhazia. The editors on this talk page has have changed a bit since then and in my judgement we've got more careful about neutrality and original research, but I think that issue would come back and just saying we're only including UN members would not necessarily satisfy.
I note that the column title "UNM Recog." is meaningless to most readers. It wasn't immediately clear to me, and I've been dealing with this page for donkey's years. I will assume that you are counting recognition by UN members.
I would suggest that it is not immediately clear what the benefit of counting these is. Not all recognitions are created equal. Recognition by a small South Pacific island is, with the greatest of respect to small South Pacific islands, diplomatically far less significant than recognition by a great power. The difference is important but difficult to quantify. And I think there are other ways to make it clearer what the extent of recognition is in each case: I suggest removing some of the bloat out of the status column and perhaps move to more of a bullet point format. Kahastok talk 22:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
One issue with such figures is that many of them are unsourced. For example, while we have sources that say that Pakistan does not recognize Armenia, we do not have sources that the remaining 192 UN member states do recognize Armenia. And it's WP:OR to make claims based on assumptions that since no one has found sources saying they don't recognize, then therefore they must recognize. TDL (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I must say I thought that there might be some history here, given the speed of the revert. That is an interesting thread, although as you say, things have moved on a little.
As a newer editor to this page, it feels to me that some of the verbiage in the status column is only there for legacy reasons, and could be thinned down or reformatted.
I have had another go with the date of declaration - if you agree, I can remove the equivalent text from the status columns.
Oncenawhile (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I recall we had a large discussion a while a go about whether states like Montenegro which are very new UN members with whome not everyone has yet established diplomatic ties count as unrecognized. I don't think having a "UN recognition" column is a good idea because I'm concerned that we may reopen that can of worms in doing so. The exact question was along the lines of: If two states are both UN members and have never had any diplomatic relations of any sort, do they recognize each other? I think in the end Consensus was that it doesn't matter, because no relations means no source saying that they DON'T recognize each other, but if we make statements as to number recognizing, then we have to sort that out again. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that, aside from other issues raised, I don't see how it serves as "another way to reduce the status verbiage" per the edit summary. Does that mean that the intention is that the dates and content clarification in the "Status" column are to be removed? If not, it's a redundant column. If so, it's OR... and renders the status column redundant as none of that content can be made to make sense without dates. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Limited recognition.png

Please note that I have protected this file, used in the lead of this article, on Commons. The protected version matches the current version of the article (as of 08:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)). If substantive changes are wanted to the file, I will expect to see a consensus for that change to be established at this page or the file's talk page.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Principality of Sealand

Should we add the unrecognized Principality of Sealand or is that to frivolous a situation to list with these ones? Arnoutf (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Too frivolous. It's unrecognized, and if Britain decided tomorrow morning they wanted to empty Sealand, they would accomplish it by afternoon tea. --Golbez (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we deliberately exclude micronations because they are a fundamentally different thing to the entries the list is intended for. Kahastok talk 19:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, let's not add it. Arnoutf (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, Donetsk Republic and Lugansk Republic

Could someone, please, explain exactly why Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh and Somaliland are considered as states with limited recognition, while the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics are not? Donetsk and Lugansk P.R. have engaged in international relations (even if it's only with South Ossetia, but Somaliland not even that), since February 2015 they've had stable borders, populations and governments. Like it or not, but that's the reality. I May not particularly like the existence of Northern Cyprus or Transnistria but they exist. Now, given the circumstances and if no further and reasonable explanation is given, I'll take the initiative to remove Somaliland since it has less statehood conditions than the 2 other ones I mentioned. It's a matter of being coherent. Greetings! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that WP:reliable sources such as scholars of international law have concluded after careful, expert analysis that Somaliland, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh and Northern Cyprus meet the definition of a sovereign state under international law (ie Ker-Lindsay, James (2012). The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States. Oxford University Press. p. 53. ...there are three other territories that have unilaterally declared independence and are generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria for statehood but have not been recognized by any states: Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland.)
Meanwhile, as far as I am aware only anonomous wikipedia editors have claimed that Donetsk and Lugansk meet the criteria. You are obviously welcome to hold whatever opinion you like on the matter, but your personal WP:original research cannot be published in article space. Only conclusions published by reliable sources can be published in article space. TDL (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


A quick search reveals this http://web.a.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=20718322&AN=108554586&h=2yLluQ9USyL%2bqrCi5QJVc4nyzOcvVycbWvgJRA7DR%2bRtRbulSfYzP%2byYExydgXcINKPIW1ATxkv6Vyaf1NMwZw%3d%3d&crl=c&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d20718322%26AN%3d108554586 ("in the context of Russia's political, military, and financial support for self-declared "people's republics" in Donetsk and Luhansk"). And this http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/doi/10.1111/1467-8322.12108/epdf "What remains of primary importance in de facto states is the performative nature of the state and the degree of cohesion it creates by changing the facts on the ground. The Donetsk People’s Republic declared its inde-pendence on 7 April 2014 and held a referendum scarcely a month later on 11 May 2014. Though the results of this ref-erendum were predictably in favour of independence from Ukraine, the fact that it occurred is what matters. After the referendum, the basic conditions of statehood can be fulfilled." and further "Post-referendum, the conflict is no longer between Ukraine and individuals or groups challenging its authority, but between two polities, one rec-ognized, the other not. Both see themselves as sovereign. According to international law, both are sovereign if they can successfully exercise authority in the contested territo-ries – this is what is now being tested. A few flags, occu-pied buildings, and a made-to-order referendum do much to legitimize an otherwise tenuous claim to statehood." I'll need more time to read through these and be sure that I understand their full argument (the articles are Ukraine, International Law, and the Political Economy of Self- Determination. and Separatism redux: Crimea, Transnistria, and Eurasia's de facto states respectively), but it certainly indicates scholarly coverage. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Scholarly coverage perhaps, but I don't see anything in there where any conclusions have been drawn that would allow us to state those conclusions.
The source says "After the referendum, the basic conditions of statehood can be fulfilled". So per the source on referendum day they did not satisfy the criteria for statehood. Have they since been satisfied? Perhaps, but the source does not say that.
"Both see themselves as sovereign." - yes but the question we are asking is ARE they sovereign, not do they think they are sovereign.
"both are sovereign if they can successfully exercise authority in the contested territo-ries – this is what is now being tested." - but the source does not discuss the results of these "tests", so again no conclusions on their sovereignty. TDL (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Another thing: We have WP:RS showing that South Ossetia has recognized both the LPR and the DPR. Isn't that, by itself sufficient for inclusion, since that means they are already partially recognized? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

And ISIS has established diplomatic relations with the "emirate of Aleppo", making both of them "partially recognized". And Sealand has all kinds of diplomatic relations: [4]. Obviously it matters from who the recognition comes.
This was discussed a while back at Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Archive_13#4._Criteria_for_inclusion and the consensus was against changing the criteria for inclusion, which requires recogntion by at least one UN member state. TDL (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't that mean Somaliland, Transitaria, and Nagoro-Karabah should be removed?Penguin661 (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
No, for reasons TDL described earlier in this thread. Kahastok talk 18:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
No indeed, as an encyclopedia, we can not be in the business of predicting the future situation or stability. Yes there may come a moment when we need to include Donetsk, but there may also be a moment that we must conclude they are part of Ukraine, Russia, or form some kind of federation (as proposed). Only time will tell, and that's the moment we can add them; not now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.tak (talk • contribs)

Ok, I have just finished catching up on the discussions previously held on this issue. So clearly the jury is still out weather or not the two states have met the declarative theory or not. Weather a formal "declaration" has happened or not seems to be the sticking point, and the editing community at large has not reached a consensus on this matter. Fair enough.

Can we all at least agree that the proposed "states" have now obtained a fixed border at the ceasefire line that essentially has remained unchanged for months now? As far as I can see they now satisfy the criteria for the four following points: A defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states. Due to their aforementioned fixed borders with a population that is resident in their cities (and relations they now have with South Ossetia, as was mentioned in previous discussions), despite the two "states" possibly not having actually declared such independence. In theory that would mean if such a elusive source were found then they could be added to the list, or if they happen to declare independence at some future point then they could correspondingly be added to this list. Is this something that the majority can agree on? That after all of this passage of time they would now fulfill the four criteria points, if relevant sources are obtained that is? Please bear in mind I am not asking for these "states" to be included now, just asking if now they 'could' be included. Thoughts? Wiz9999 (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

If an entity has not declared independence then it cannot be added to this list... I think in the past I would have said "unless recognized by another entity" but recognition does not make one a state if one does not declare oneself to be a state. Por ejemplo, if someone were to recognize Tibet as an independent nation, we shouldn't add it here because, well, Tibet disagrees. Of course, usually the issue of recognizing an undeclared entity doesn't happen, but if you're saying Donetsk and Luhansk haven't technically declared independence then ... well that is interesting, isn't it. But haven't they? --Golbez (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I think we can say confidently that based on the actions these states have taken, they can be said to have effectively declared inpedendence. They just haven't made it simple for us in, say, a single document declaring their independence. Outback the koala (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
IIRC they issued a formal declaration of independence with the referendum? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I did not ask for them to be added to the list, I simply asked if they currently fulfill the criteria, were they to declare independence now (or if a credible source showing that they have already done so was found). Wiz9999 (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Given the absence of reliable sources coming to that conclusion, no they don't. Kahastok talk 22:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair Enough, then let the record show that there is no consensus among the editors that the four criteria are met. Wiz9999 (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately we may end up with a huge argument if they do declare independence. Wiz9999 (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not really relevant what we think about whether Donetsk and Luhansk meet the criteria, it's the sources that matter. If, on balance, reliable sources accept that the declarative theory is met, and sources demonstrate that sovereignty is claimed, then yes they go in. Kahastok talk 21:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, I believe it is critical what the consensus is amongst the editors. Weather or not these four points have been met or not is of paramount importance, as there is clearly no consensus weather the declarative theory has been met due to there being no clear "Declaration of independence" from the states in question. If such a declaration were to occur now how would we act? Are we satisfied that current sources show that these four points are met? And that the "Declaration" part is the only part that is not currently fulfilled? If there is no consensus currently on this matter then we are just going to wind up with a massive fight on our hands if they do declare independence. This is why I am asking if the overall majority agree if the four points are met. Wiz9999 (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
To your point regarding consensus vrs sources, I believe your point is valid. It is too soon to expect a multitude of scholarly articles to argue one way or the other. In the absence of this we have evidence that all 4 points have been met. We must try to keep the encyclopedia up to date and in line with the reality of the situation. Outback the koala (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
If it's too soon to expect scholarly articles to argue one way or the other then it's too soon to add them. Being a state - such as belongs on this list - is A Very Big Deal. And it's a call that can't be made without a legal judgement, based on interpretation of international law.
The argument you seem to be making that Wikipedia can be the first source in the world to make this legal judgement. That random Wikipedia editors, who may have no qualifications and a very incomplete understanding of the law, are better placed than all the lawyers, academics and governments on the planet to determine whether a state exists. Just about every basic policy Wikipedia has holds that this is not allowed. It would not be neutral, it would not be verifiable and it would - absolutely indisputably - be original research for Wikipedia to be the first source in the world to conclude that a state exists.
Creating a false dichotomy between sources and consensus is unhelpful. Consensus must be guided by policy. Policy says there must be sources. Except in really exceptional circumstances (which don't apply here) you can't just say, we have consensus that we don't need sources. Any more than you can have consensus to replace the article with propaganda. Kahastok talk 17:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree with Kahastok, without reliable sources we should not add such a major claim (And just by our statements here it is already clear there will not be consensus to do so in any case). Arnoutf (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Based on the differing arguments raised by Outback the koala, Kahastok, and Arnoutf I agree fully with the statement that there is clearly no consensus by the editors on how to act regarding this matter. Once again, let the record show that us editors are in dispute about how to act, if the criteria are met, and finally if there has been a declaration or not. Wiz9999 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Note that we have a very strong standing consensus against inclusion, that has been repeatedly expressed including at RFC, for the reasons that I have described. I do not accept that this discussion changes this fact. Kahastok talk 18:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Somaliland gained a full sovereignty there fore why international community has not recognized yet? Shakir-essa (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Politics, usually. Most of the international community is very big on 'territorial integrity' [except of course when it benefits their geopolitical gains]. For Somalia to fracture would signal that the west failed, both in drawing lines in Africa, then in preserving those lines. It also gives uppity regions in other countries encouragement to strike out on their own; why would Spain, with Catalonia champing to get out, ever endorse secessionists anywhere? (and indeed, Spain is the only EU member not to recognize Kosovo [well also Slovakia, but their lack appears to be without prejudice]) Also, no one particularly cares. Unlike Kosovo or South Ossetia, Somaliland is not a pawn in Realpolitik between NATO/EU and Russia/CIS. Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria don't have both sides tugging at them, thus there has been no movement on them for going on 25 years. Somaliland doesn't have anyone tugging at it except Somalia, ineptly, and the AU, also so far ineptly. Somaliland is not a pawn, therefore there is no gameplay involving it. --Golbez (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Seperate category for Luhansk & Donestk

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be abused as a political tool, but to reflect reality. The reality is that Kiev has no control of these regions, but they're also doesn't seem to a category where they might fit in at the moment.

To avoid Wikipedia being used for political reasons (as is now the case by ignoring these states. Both are recognized by at least one other non-UN member anyway)

They should be mentioned, lest Wikipedia loses touch with reality. An Encycplodia should tell it like it is. Not like a certain WANTS it to be.

Its articles should also describe in an objective manner the situation in both of these new-born "republics"; Because with Russian backing, Ukraine is as likely to regain those territories as France does Algeria or Belgium does Congo.

TL:DR Wikipedia should reflect reality as it is, not as certain political organisation wish it was. Othewise it loses credibility hard

78.23.197.184 (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but they don't count as they do not meet the inclusion criteria - including the fact there is an ongoing civil war with shifting front lines. How would you define their territory? Legacypac (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
A shifting defacto border due to war does not preclude a state from inclusion on this page, the ongoing civil war limitation is specific to alternative governments which control territory (IE: Both Libyan governments are not included on the list). Somaliland has no static defacto eastern border, it shifts on an almost daily basis and is included on this list. The reason Donetsk and Luhansk are not included is there is a lack of sources which state that they meet the Declarative theory of statehood, if reliable sources stating they meet the declarative theory are provided they would be included in the list.XavierGreen (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Under what name? The concept of the Luhansk People's Republic fell apart some time ago, ergo presenting an unrecognised territory/state/whatever you wish to call it to readers as if it were a present, on the ground reality would be a fallacy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The argument you have presented is a false dilemma. Just because the Ukrainian goverenment does not control the territories does not necessarily imply that they are sovereign states. There are a multitude of other options which you have ignored (such as a puppet state which by definition is not sovereign.) If we are to claim they are sovereign states we need sources saying that they are sovereign states, not anonomous people on the internet claiming that they are sovereign states. TDL (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree it would be useful to have a section about areas that claim to be states and control territory, but aren't cited as sovereign in academic sources. It would be a good compromise in the debate that comes up again every month on here, and would reduce confusion among readers by addressing these high profile cases. GeoEvan (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You'd need more than "we say we exist" though, to weed out the micronations. --Golbez (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
List_of_active_rebel_groups#Groups_that_control_territory has a list of protostates which don't meet the threshold of sovereign control per RS. TDL (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
So... what makes Luhansk and Donetsk different from those? If nothing, then are we simply including everything from that list? Why not just link that list? --Golbez (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear, but yes that was my point. Better to maintain the list there and link to it from here, with some discussion, just like we do for List of micronations for example. TDL (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I think at very least some type of note or statement in the lead is necessary to indicate that there are other polities which control territory and assert independence which do not meet the criteria of this list, linking to the rebel groups that control territory page. To my knowledge there are three self declared states which assert independence and control territory which are not on this list: Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic, and the Islamic State. Also in Myanmar, Shan State Army South controls territory and had predecessor group which declared independence in the 1990's but it is unclear if the SSA-S currently asserts independence. There are also two putative states which have been declared and maintain militant forces in the field, but are not known to control territory: Republic of West Papua and Republic of Cabinda.XavierGreen (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
if we made a section with a brief explanation and then link away, thatd be better than burying in the lede I think. Outback the koala (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a suggestion for a 'brief explanation', Outback the koala? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The best place for the note is in the List_of_states_with_limited_recognition#Excluded_entities section, where we list all the other edge cases which reliable sources do not describe as sovereign states under international law. I've proposed a new bullet point below, feel free to comment. TDL (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Excluded entities section

Comments? TDL (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I like it and have incorporated a version of it into the article. Let's see what others say. We spell out ISIL though, not Islamic State which suggests they are a global state. Legacypac (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've moved it to a separate bullet point as I think this is really a separate type of excluded entities. The "civil wars" bullet discusses entities that have "temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria", while the rebels clause notes entities which do not meet the inclusion criteria at all. So even if the War in Donbass were to cease and the situation stabilize, Donetsk and Luhansk still wouldn't be added unless reliable sources found that they meet the definition of a sovereign state under international law. (It's possible that academics would conclude that they are puppet states and thus not sovereign states, so even the establishment of a stable rump state does not necessarily imply the existence of a sovereign state.) TDL (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a decent solution to me, even if I might have gone a little farther myself (I think proclaimed states with RS for territorial control might as well get full list treatment, in their own section, in the article). Not so sure about that idea that puppet states are treated as mutually-exclusive with de facto sovereign states in RS though...Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Northern Cyprus are among the most common examples of purported puppet states. GeoEvan (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Iran and Saudi Arabia

A large number of Sunni Arab states broke their diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, in some cases completely breaking also commercial ties and de-facto making Iran persona non-grata in the eyes of Sunni Arab states (as well as Djibouti). Some see this as synonimous with the declaration of war, while others consider this removing Sunni Arab recognition of Islamic Republic's legitimacy. A similar thing happened in Iran, whose government hasn't begun the diplomatic rift, but hinted that the Saudi regime is not legitimate in their eyes [5], following the radical discourse of the Saudis. We should therefore consider putting Iran and Saudi Arabia here in light of this fresh radical development as they factually seized mutual recognition. Opinions?GreyShark (dibra) 09:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

(1) The unnamed "some" in your opening line should represent a mainstream view to be relevant (which I highly doubt), and the view should be backed by relevant sources. (2) Is this about a lack of recognition of the government or of the (geographic state). We deal with the latter here. If you think that would be the case for the Iran Saudi case as well, that begs the question - If Iran does not recognize Saudi Arabia as a geographic state - to whom do they assign governmental legitimacy over the geography? Arnoutf (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a difference between lack of recognition and lack of diplomatic relations. The latter is what we seem to have in the case of Saudi Arabia and Iran at this time. I see nothing in the article that suggests that either side does not or might not recognise the other, except in the comments which obviously are not reliable sources (and even then, it's users questioning legitimacy not countries). Kahastok talk 18:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The Canadian govt withdrew diplomatic relations with Iran a few years ago, but everyone still agrees Iran is a country, just object to its present rulers. No changes required. Legacypac (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Use of Country/Geopolitical Faction Infobox on Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic pages

An edit war over which infobox to use on the DPR and LPR pages has been ongoing for several months now. In an attempt to remedy the situation i have opened up a discussion and request for comment here Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic#Infobox, your opinions and comments on the issue would be much appreciated.XavierGreen (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of states with limited recognition. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 22:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Ukraine

Should the Donetsk and Luhansk republics be added to this? I think one has zero recognition, and the other has recognition but a non-UN member.--BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 23:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggest you review the archives, this has been much discussed. Kahastok talk 18:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I have but am a bit confused what the "threshold of a sovereign state under international law" is that custs off them but includes NK/Transnistria? I mean all are self declared, recognized by non-UN members, and occupying territory of UN members that don't recognize them. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 19:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
In brief, we need sources that make the case that a state exists before we can say that a state exists. But this too has been discussed in great detail in the past, and thus I again refer you to the archives. Kahastok talk 21:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
If you can find a reliable source that states that the DPR or LPR has satisfied the declarative theory of statehood, the case for inclusion would be pretty strong under the criteria. Its not that the LPR and DPR don't meet the declartive theory, its simply that there are no sources available which state that they do, whereas we have sources which state that Transistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, ect do.XavierGreen (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Which puts them in precisely the same box as Sealand or the Kingdom of Lovely. Kahastok talk 17:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh okay cool, just curious is all (haven't touched the article, not pushing or anything). the theory states it had to have a defined territory (they don't they claim the entire oblasts but only control within the fluctuating frontlines); permanent population (many are IDPs, citizenship and passports arent universal, all are still citizens of Ukraine); a government (I think the DNR would qualify for this); international relations (DNR does qualify for this if you count South Ossetia).

So that being said, if DNR citizenship continued to extend, and its borders were defined by Minsk II(I) / a future Ukrainian constitutional amendment, it would qualify for the article?--BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 18:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Separate question, but since South Ossetia's borders continue to change (in what is being described as a 'creeping annexation') would it no longer qualify for the declarative model? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Future (talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not a particular polity satisfies the declarative or constitutive theory is irrelevant, what is relevant is that there are reliable sources stating that either the said polity satisfies one of the declarative theory, or that the state is recognized by a UN member state.XavierGreen (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please remind me why we decided to disregard recognition by non-UN member states for which reliable sources establish their statehood? (I don't remember, sorry). --HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOV we have to give due weight to relevant points, that will vary depending on how widespread a viewpoint is. The situation you describe is one where a polity is not considered a state by any lawyer, academic or government on the planet, other than a single "state" whose own legitimacy is under serious question. WP:WEIGHT says that "[i]f a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it". That rule applies in this situation.
Put another way, imagine the situation if Russia recognises South Ossetia which recognises Donetsk which recognises Sealand which recognises the Kingdom of Lovely which recognises my bedroom. Does my bedroom get an entry on this list? If we allowed recognition by non-UN member states, then yes it does. Clearly it shouldn't.
South Ossetia qualifies as it is recognised by UN member states, so whether it meets declarative theory isn't important for our purpose. Kahastok talk 20:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Lists of countries and territories, List of sovereign states, List of active rebel groups and ISIL

Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#RFC:_Lists_of_countries_and_territories.2C_List_of_sovereign_states.2C_List_of_active_rebel_groups_and_ISIL has an RFC potentially affecting this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 21:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Abkhazia infobox RfC

Due to a similarity in topics, editors here are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox. CMD (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Excluided Entities

This section has multiple issues I would like to discuss. A part of this section claims that entities like the Donetsk People's Republic are simply rebel groups that control territory and declare independence,however there are no sources for this claim next to this piece or anywhere at all.Could anyone please find a source for this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.142.1 (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Some polities, like the DPR and LPR for example, can be shown through various sources which collectively show that they meet the elements of the declarative theory of statehood. However, as of yet no one has shown a source which states that they do in fact meet all of the elements of the theory. Because the wiki rules state that facts cant be synthesized from several combined sources, the statement that they meet the declarative theory of statehood is unsourced and therefore they are not included in the list.XavierGreen (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Dropping the 'declarative theory' requirement

My assertion here is that we should drop the requirement for sources to say that an entity meets "the declarative theory" of sovereignty, and simply require that reliable sources say that an entity is "sovereign". There is no good reason to privilege a particular description/understanding of sovereignty, when the concept itself challenged and complex. This is not to reject the idea that entities require multiple, verifiable, independent sources. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. There are several entities that fail our criteria that reliable sources might reasonably describe as "sovereign". For example, the US has concepts of tribal sovereignty for its indigenous peoples, and also a concept of state sovereignty (for example, Article 1 Section 26 of the Constitution of Louisiana defines Louisiana as a "sovereign state".) There are doubtless similar situations in other countries. And what about places most often described in other languages? Relying on a specific word is a poor idea in a list like this because it will be systemically biased towards English-speaking countries.
It is far better for us to use the clearest description possible of what we're referring to. There is far less scope to dispute whether the criterion is met than with a word that may be being misunderstood or used with a different meaning. And it's also worth bearing in mind that the declarative theory - unlike the use of the word "sovereign" - is also clearly grounded in international law. I think it is a fair requirement. Kahastok talk 22:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
You're correct that I should have asserted that the claim is to be a sovereign state, yes - that's a fair point. With regards to the second point, however, the sovereignty of countries is messy. This is a general encyclopedia, not a legal encyclopedia: national sovereignty is not solely the realm of international law. If (for example) political science scholars were to frequently describe an entity as a sovereign state, without explicitly using the declarative theory, I do think that should be sufficient. I think it's important to say that I'm not necessarily referring to any sources here - we'd want material which is stronger than regular news reporting. But I don't see why we're prioritizing one particular framing of sovereignty here.--Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Just to move this outside a hypothetical debate. Super Nintendo Chalmers, do you have a (current) example where independent reliable sources describe an entity as a sovereign state (as in country not as in US state of course), where that same state did not declare itself independent (or something similar). If not, we may be discussing a non-existing problem. Arnoutf (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
There are various commonwealth realms which have never declared themselves to be independent, yet consider themselves to be sovereign states with international personality, these include Canada and Australia.XavierGreen (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The words "sovereign state" are used in the Louisiana constitution. Any time we're dealing with requiring specific words or phrases, we're asking for trouble because we're basically preventing foreign language sources and inviting bad additions because the words or phrases have multiple meanings.
While I accept we are not a legal encyclopædia, the concept of sovereignty is inherently - and solely - a question of law. You say, what about political scientists: if they're referring to sovereignty then they are making a legal judgement. Also worth remembering that we don't prioritise the declarative theory to the exclusion of all others - in fact there are only three claimed states here whose inclusion relies on it.
The bar for inclusion should be high. Being a state is A Very Big Deal. The standard we have is high, yes, but it's not unreasonably so. In a general sense, this is expressed by WP:WEIGHT - if a state isn't recognised by any UN member state, its sovereignty is already a minority view. Once we then can't find a legal opinion that it's sovereign, we're getting pretty close to the third point, where "a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it". Kahastok talk 17:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Aside from the commonwealth realms (which easily satisfy the constitutive theory), the only polity I am aware of in recent times which claimed sovereignty but did not expressly declare independence was the Republic of Tatarstan, it declared itself sovereign in 1990. It asserted itself internationally as a sovereign state, to my knowledged was not afforded recognition by any country, and then in 1994 signed a treaty with Russia which had the effect of surrendering itself to defacto Russian administration before recognizing itself as dejure part of Russia in 2002. Its possible some of the polities involved in the Bosnian war did the same, but I am not familiar enough with them to say so for sure.XavierGreen (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
So what? We don't require a declaration of independence for this criterion even under the current rule, so long as it can be reliably sourced that the putative state meets the declarative theory (citing, for example, Montevideo). The proposition is that if a suitably reliable source has referred to somewhere as "sovereign" or as a "sovereign state", that should be enough. Kahastok talk 20:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

People's Republic of China

No-one of the links provided prove that there are UN members not recognizing the People's Republic of China. The links only prove that the PRC does not want diplomatic relations with those who recognize the ROC. The PRC should be deleted of the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.111.252 (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of states with limited recognition. 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:

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) 07:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Somaliland

Iryna Harpy I did not add original research, would the edit work better if I add sources such as this? Many thanks Kzl55 (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

DPRK Relations URL

@Iryna Harpy: I was able to access the URL that the IP added (here http://www.ncnk.org/resources/briefing-papers/all-briefing-papers/dprk-diplomatic-relations). If you want I can post a screenshot of what's on there. Basically its a map of countries "with which the DPRK has diplomatic relations". "countries that have formally broken their relations with North Korea remain blank". Recognition is not explicitly mentioned as far as I can see (@2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:c021:ec7d:fbd6:3ac6 could you quote the part of the reference that talks about lack of recognition, as opposed to lack of bilateral relations?). The list of countries that don't have bilateral relations with the DPRK from that map is rather broad, including, in addition to the usual suspects, countries like Ecuador and Lesotho. If consensus is that lack of bilateral relations is the same as non-recognition, then I can list them all out for the benefit of people for whom the URL doesn't work, and add them to the list, but I think consensus is that lacking bilateral relations is different from non-recognition so this source isn't really relevant to this page. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC) @Iryna Harpy: and @2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:c021:ec7d:fbd6:3ac6:. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for searching it out, HighFlyingFish. The url was originally throwing a 404 at me, and I couldn't find anything that resembled it at that time. I'm having no problems with it now. No, lack of bilateral relations is not the same as non-recognition. The policy in question is WP:NOR, and making assumptions based on X-Y relations as not existing is WP:SYNTH. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Sealand

Usually grouped with micronations, and legally questionable since its territory is man-made, but doesn't the Principality of Sealand meet the declarative criteria? It controls territory, de facto tolerated by neighbouring states for about 50 years now, people do live there, it has a government (although the Prince doesn't live there himself), and it has had relations with other states in the past (connected to the 1978 hostage crisis). The difference between Sealand and other micronations based on a claim of secession is that Sealand's territory was abandoned in international waters at the time it was set up. If it isn't properly terra nullius, that is only because it is a man-made structure. I think that's enough to put it in the same category as Somaliland. --79.22.131.211 (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You'd need an academic source saying that it meets the declarative criteria, otherwise that's Wikipedia:OR. Also a lot of micronations have been declared in international waters, like the Republic of Rose Island --HighFlyingFish (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
How strictly is "academic" interpreted? I'm of half a mind to go and start digging, because I do think I'll find it stated somewhere respectable. Would a broadsheet newspaper or magazine do? --79.22.131.211 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't heard of the Rose Island attempt before now, but surely the most important difference there is that another state did object to it being set up, and effectively conquered it. Sealand has been accepted as outside British jurisdiction by an English court in 1968, and there's no dispute that Roughs Tower was abandoned by the Royal Navy. --79.22.131.211 (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you nicely summed up the reason why Sealand is not included in this list yourself actually. In your very first sentence above you said that Sealand is "legally questionable". That right there is the problem, its existence as a "state" is in dispute. No one denies that Sealand is not an entity or organisation of some sort, but the real question is; is that entity a "state"? This question is quite complex actually, and no one really has a good answer to it. Thus, it is excluded from this list. Unless something changes with its status that is. However, based on its history, that does not seem likely in the near future anyway. Wiz9999 (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I mean by definition the statehood of every state on this list is disputed. We've discussed Sealand and other edge cases like the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics a lot on the talk pages, and what the current consensus has come to is basically that at least some academic sources (peer reviewed journals, etc.) need to refer to it as a state OR another UN member must recognize it. Recognition by non-UN members, or references in more casual sources have been rejected (e.g. a lot of journalists call ISIL a state, but ISIL is not included on this list). Personally I think the bar is unnecessarily high, but that is what discussion has yielded. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

With ISIL specifically there's some notable academic sources explicitly stating it isn't a state in the modern sense of that word (discussed here Talk:List_of_states_with_limited_recognition/Archive_11#Islamic_State_in_Iraq_Infobox) which is pretty good reason for excluding something. Here's another example of what sort of sources are needed, as per Donetsk and Luhansk Talk:List_of_states_with_limited_recognition/Archive_12#Donetsk_and_Luhansk. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Specific excerpt: "Simply saying that it is a state is insufficient. We need to be able to demonstrate that they are often considered to meet the declarative theory of statehood. Please cite where relevant sources explicitly state that the two entities [Donetsk and Lugansk] pass the test of the declarative theory of statehood" --HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Republic of South Ossetia–the State of Alania

Because of the South Ossetian name change referendum, 2017 should we change South Ossetia's entry to Republic of South Ossetia–the State of Alania? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that it's a state of limited recognition, and that the current WP:COMMONNAME hasn't changed as yet, I think it's best to wait to see whether reliable sources pick it up as the new name. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Only formal name, i.e. Republic of South Ossetia, was changed. The short name South Ossetia may be still used. Moreover, according to the question from the referendum there are two names meaning the same: "Republic of South Ossetia" and "State of Alania". Aotearoa (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC) PS. In the article South Ossetian name change referendum, 2017 short name "South Ossetia–Alania" is mentioned. But no sources for it, and such a name was not in a question during the referendum. Aotearoa (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
But we already use long names throughout this article. e.g. "Republic of South Ossetia" rather than South Ossetia, and "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" rather than "Western Sahara" and "Republic of China" rather than "Taiwan" and so on. So using the full long name in this case also makes sense to me. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
But sill the question is whether long name is Republic of South Ossetia–the State of Alania or there are two names Republic of South Ossetia and State of Alania. According to the question in referendum the answer isn't clear. Aotearoa (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Google translate says ""1. The Republic of South Ossetia - Alania State - a sovereign democratic legal state created as a result of self-determination of the people of South Ossetia.

The names of the Republic of South Ossetia, and the State of Alania are equal. " I'm not able to think of another country that has two equal names, but even the referendum seems to give State of Alania as either an alternative name or a hyphenated name.[1] along the lines of Russian Republic of North Ossetia–Alania Legacypac (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://oc-media.org/south-ossetia-to-be-renamed-alania-as-bibilov-wins-presidential-election/

Common Names vs. Official Names

Should we be using the WP:COMMONNAME or the official names of these entities? The version proposed by @Beshogur (and frankly the current version also) is currently inconsistent on this, both within entries (Republic of Artsakh vs. Karabakh) and between entries (Karabakh vs. Republic of China vs. Republic of South Ossetia (that recently voted to change its name to Republic of South Ossetia–the State of Alania, see 2017 in South Ossetia). I think we should use the official names in all cases, as those are the ones used by the entities themselves, and those are unambiguous and consistent (whereas unofficial names can often refer to geographic regions and outright mislead, for example Taiwan claims territory outside of Taiwan). We could also follow the List of sovereign states and provide both names (e.g. Nagorno-Karabakh – Republic of Artsakh[Note 25]). Also please see the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Discuss controversial edits and establish consensus before reinstating them. Thank you! --HighFlyingFish (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Another example: "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" vs. "Western Sahara" both of which also appear on the article. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Except in obvious WP:IAR cases (e.g. "Georgia (country)"), we should always use the name used in the name of the article. That way we don't have to have the same naming question on every article individually, but can concentrate it to a single article.
Editors wishing to change the name of an entry should concentrate on changing the name of the country article, not on changing the name elsewhere. Kahastok talk 20:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, problematic. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA is fraught with perils, but WP:COMMONNAME tends to get my !vote (and my goat). I'm leaning towards IAR as a method to implement the use of 'official' and 'unofficial' for the sake of recognisability for the reader, but it wouldn't take much to twist my arm either way. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Official name according to who? By definition these areas are disputed with one or more entities claiming them. Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The common names are usually derived from the location and the location is not the entity which is unrecognised. It’s actually the organisation which currently has control over it. As this is a list of states with limited recognition I would suggest we need to keep the official name listed otherwise it will be ambiguous for the reader and in some cases unclear as to what entity we are referring to. For example South Ossetia is used as the common name for the Republic of South Ossetia, it’s the independent republic which is unrecognized. The territory is also claimed by the Provisional Administration of South Ossetia which is recognized as a subdivision of Georgia. Another is Taiwan as short for the Republic of China, it is the ROC which is unrecognised not Taiwan island which the People’s Republic of China recognises as a breakaway province of the RPC. I would suggest we rename name to official name and then either explain in the status column for those that need it or maybe insert an additional column for the known as/common names. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 12:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea of changing name to official name. An organisation (such as a state) will have one or more official names for itself; and in the case of organisations with limited recognition, the governments of English-speaking countries will also have an official name for that organisation. If Wikipedia chooses which name to call the official name, Wikipedia ceases to hold a neutral point of view, because it will be setting itself up as an arbiter over whose official name to use.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
As Legacypac already outlines above. A state not recognised by English speaking countries can not have an official name; as that would imply recognition by the government using a formal name. So most of this discussion seems irrelevant and far outside of the scope Wikipedia should aspirte to. Arnoutf (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure some people want to know some of the names that are commonly used by people when they talk about their country. This should be closed as the idea while in good faith is not the best thing to do here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm increasingly warming to the convention in List of sovereign states where both are given, as that would give our readers the most information in the most compact manner. If we don't do that, I think the neutral and unambiguous thing to do is to use the entity's own official name(s) for themselves. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Picking on Republic of China as noted above - the ROC is fully recognized as being the name of China before the communist victory. The question now is, is ROC the proper government for all or some of China. This illistrates the problem well. Currently "Name" identifies the common long form of the limited recognition government which is appropriate. It should not be just the name of the place, for that would make us the decider of which government is the ligitimate ruler of the place. We should say ROC and PROC not China or China outside Taiwan or Taiwan etc. Legacypac (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, my arm has been twisted. I was mulling over this issue yesterday and found myself asking myself the same questions posed by other editors have chimed in about, and have elaborated on. Whose name is it? Not one of these entities is an English speaking country/nation-state, and it's our role to represent the long variant of the entity according to (native) English language sources, not 50 shades of convolutions according to how the entity represents itself, nor how a handful of countries that recognise them may acknowledge them according to their translations into English. It's the mainstream we represent, and I fear that falling into trying to be politically correct is a politically wet position analogous to 'not a thesaurus'. Rather than clarifying anything, various convolutions muddy the waters. The only place various naming conventions are appropriate for are the articles on the entities themselves, not this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Qatar

Nine Arab countries, namely Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, the Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen, have all cut their diplomatic ties with Qatar recently. Should we now include Qatar in the list of UN member states not recognised by at least one UN member state? Bobbie73 (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The U.S. doesn't have diplomatic ties with Iran or Bhutan, doesn't mean they don't recognize them as nations. Cutting of diplomatic ties doesn't entail a removal of recognition of a nation-state so no we shouldn't. - SantiLak (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
No diplomatic ties does not mean no recognition. No one is saying Qatar's government is illegitamate. This is just a diplomatic spat. Legacypac (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought the only way to recognise a country as a sovereign state is to maintain a diplomatic relationship with that country. Otherwise, how would you politically recognise a country as a sovereign state? Bobbie73 (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Countries don't need to have direct diplomatic relations with a state to recognize them. Withdrawing recognition is something completely different than severing diplomatic ties. - SantiLak (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

New countries are rarely formed so it's not a big issue. Answer is... it depends. [1] and Diplomatic recognition Legacypac (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Recognition can be done simply by the two countries signing a treaty, or even merely one country sending a diplomatic note to another stating that they recognize their existance as a soveriegn state. Withdrawal of recognition is very rare, suspension of diplomatic relations is common.XavierGreen (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Wa State

Should we include Wa State in the list? I reckon they are very similar to Somaliland. 2001:8003:8600:EF00:88D5:9EC7:ADC9:5D15 (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I have never been able to find a source which indicates that they have declared independence. They certaintly maintain control over their territory, have a government, and have the capacity to enter into foreign relations, but i have yet to see a source that states that they have declared independence or assert their sovereignty as such (IE: Australia). Furthermore, we need a source stating that they satisfy the declarative theory of statehood. The only Burmese rebel group that i am aware of that actually declared independence was Khun Sa's Mong Tai Army which did in fact declare the independence of Shan State and governed portions of it in the 1990's. I have seen sources which describe this Shan State polity as an unrecognized state during its existence. The Mong Tai Army has been subsumed into Shan State Army-South which controls territory, but it is unclear as to whether or not they have adopted the stance that the Mong Tai Army's declaration of independence applies to them or not.XavierGreen (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Recognition and diplomatic relations

About recognition of a state [6], Recognition of States in International Law and Recognition of states and governments in international law. Reading for someone.--Yopie (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Free Kashmir

I'm currently reading the "De facto statehood in Eurasia: a political and security phenomenon" article discussed above and it offhandedly mentions the following: "The number of recognitions itself can vary from dozens (e.g. the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Kosovo or Taiwan) to several (e.g. Abkhazia, South Ossetia) to one (e.g. the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is recognized only by Turkey, and Free Kashmir, which is recognized only by Pakistan)." If Pakistan recognizes Free Kashmir then it is, by definition, a state with limited recognition and ought to be included. The quote above is the article's only mention of Free Kashmir and the author doesn't elaborate upon his claim. Is it accurate? Should we include Free Kashmir recognized by Pakistan? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I had brought this up once before and it was shot down by other editors, but if you can find reliable sources which states that Pakistan recognizes Azad Kashmir as a soveriegn state, it possiblely could satisfy the constitutive theory and thus qualify for inclusion on the page.XavierGreen (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The De Facto statehood article says it. It's the only source I've found so far though I can try to find others. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I've also seen some non-academic sources saying Pakistan does not recognize free kashmir. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of states with limited recognition. 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:

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) 21:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

RFC at WT:COUNTRIES

Please note that there is an RFC at WikiProject Countries that editors of this article may be interested in. Kahastok talk 19:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

North Korea

Elsewhere on Wikipedia (including in the North Korea article itself and the Foreign Relations of North Korea), eight UN members are cited as not recognizing North Korea as a state: Argentina, Botswana, Estonia, France, Iraq, Israel, Japan, and the United States. Recommend editing the North Korea section to reflect those eight countries do not recognize North Korea.

That's not what the article says (lack of diplomatic relations does not imply lack of recognition). Plus Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Do you have any WP:RS to support this claim? TDL (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure why you say that. Both articles say these countries either "don't recognize the DPRK as a state" or that "the DPRK is not recognized by" them, both at present and when you made your comment. The "Foreign Relations of North Korea" article even contradistinguishes this position with those states that recognize but lack diplomatic relations (e.g. Saudi Arabia). The claims in both of those articles are amply backed up by WP:RS, the quality of which I cannot assess. I will note that, in the archives of this talk page, the question of the US's recognition of DPRK has come up and it appears legitimate sources differ as to whether the US government has recognized DPRK as a state. I have not seen any discussion as to whether, for instance, France's recognition or non-recognition is similarly ambiguous, and that seems a valid discussion for a talk page.
Sorry, I only looked at the foreign relations article, which contradicts the North Korea article. Reviewing this article, the cited sources do not support the claim. For example, this is given as evidence of Botswana not recognizing, but it does not say anything about recognition. TDL (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhanks

We must add these areas. Beshogur (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in the past - see Talk:List_of_states_with_limited_recognition/Archive_12#Donetsk_and_Luhansk. TL;DR there haven't been any reliable sources provided that assert that they are states (or that they satisfy the declarative theory of statehood), hence their inclusion in the excluded entities section. Alcherin (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Beshogur (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
If you can find a reliable source which states that either of them satisfy the declarative theory of statehood, there likely would be consensus to put them on the list.XavierGreen (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
No, because Donetsk is a self proclaimed state, that it claims to be a state is well sourced as is that it is recognized as a state by South Ossetia.XavierGreen (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Then I don't understand your logic. If it is self proclaimed state, why we can not list it here? This it list of states with limited recognition, isn't it? --Yelysavet (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Can this (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23761199.2015.1086565) article be a WP:RS for including DPR and LPR herein? --Yelysavet (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I dont have access to that source, merely the abstract of it is viewable by me.XavierGreen (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
If you have a source which states that Donetsk and or Luhansk meet the declarative theory of statehood, i suggest you be bold and add them to the page citing the relevant source.XavierGreen (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't have access to the paper either. But from the (Freely accessible) abstract it appears the author starts out with claiming a number of post-soviet succession as entities that play a role in the Eastern European political landscape. I would say both term and conclusion are undisputed. And the states he will define unrecognised states. The latter will be probably based on an analysis of the listed regions. While such an analysis and definition could definitely be worthwhile in the scientific (policy) debate, it is unlikely that the provided definition (2015) is currently mainstream (yet). Hence I would argue that in this case we should treat the definition as a primary source and not put undue weight on it, at least for now. Thanks for bringing the source to the table though - it appears to be of high quality (albeit primary) Arnoutf (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I see your point, thank you. But still we need to change something, or here or there. --Yelysavet (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I've requested a copy via my academic institution (University of Washington) so when I get the full text, I'll read through it and sort it out. It looks very promising to me, but I want to look at the full text to make sure. If you have access and it mentions the declarative theory of statehood directly in connection with the PRs (and NOT with the defunct Novorossiya project), I would go ahead and be bold and add them to this list. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@HighFlyingFish: Look forward to getting insight from the actual article. But please take my point above into account when reading: If the author first creates a definition and than interprets Donetsk as a state following that definition we should be extremely cautious. As the conclusion would be highly dependent on the definition, and if the definition is not mainstream, neither the conclusion can be. Also take into account that the journal seems not be included in the major databases (ISI Web of Science or Scopus) although Taylor Francis is a respected publisher this should be an indication that the article is likely of limited impact in the mainstream debate. Arnoutf (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Got the article but haven't had a chance to read it yet. That said [7] it looks like there's a new development on the ground that may render this article moot. We may potentially have to add Malorossiya but this seems like it supersedes the two people's republics, assuming this report is accurate. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The Malorossiya thing is just a proposal and it is already moot, the LPR government has rejected it outright.XavierGreen (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Huh, the new one to? I remember there was an old failed attempt, but this announcement is recent and reflects new developments. Has Luhansk rejected it as well? Source? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Most of the articles carrying the story mention that Luhansk wants nothing to do with it, [[8]], [[9]], [[10]].XavierGreen (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Huh alright. In that case it seems the article @Yelysavet brought up still reflects an accurate description of the situation on the ground. I'll make time to read it over the weekend. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to admit, based on the article's text I'm not sure it in itself is cause to add them. Some pertinent quotes: "But if the de-escalation process, launched in Minsk, is implemented, even though with difficulty, the Donetsk and Lugansk republics will have a real chance to build statehood of their own within their present boundaries. There are no guarantees that this process will be successful." and "The Donbass breakaway territories are now often compared to Transnistria. But even compared with Crimea, where the movement for joining Russia was headed by leaders who had made successful political or business careers after Ukraine had gained independence (Sergei Aksyonov,Alexei Chaly and Vladimir Konstantinov), Donbass lacks experienced politicians. Thus currently different options, ranging from Chechnya and Serbian Krajina to the Transnistrian experience, may be possible.". Like the article I found a while back, Donbass statehood is described as a thing being built/tested not a thing unrecognized but already in existence. Based on these quotes the author wants to draw a clear distinction between the Donbass PRs and the other entities he analyzes. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Caspersen, Nina (2016). "Making Peace with De Facto States". The Annual of Language and Language of Politics and Identity. 10: 7–18. ISSN 1805-3769. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-09-01. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help) — «Moreover, new contested territories that could be described as de facto states have emerged, most notably the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republics in Ukraine. These two newest additions to the universe of de facto states have started to create some of the trappings of statehood, although the extent of „indigenous roots‟ is still debatable" --Yelysavet (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Not convincing to me. Even the author is unsure if they are defacto states. Legacypac (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, let's wait for other user's opinions. --Yelysavet (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
"These two newest additions to the universe of de facto states" sounds pretty sure to me. It seems like the author, while acknowledging ongoing debate, is making the claim that these new entities are now de facto states. I think this is good enough to add them. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't, actually. At best, this is equivocal. Our requirement is that it must "satisfy the declarative theory of statehood" according to WP:RS, and I think that that standard is higher than one article is published that acknowledges the possibility.
I'd note that this more clearly fails the List of sovereign states test that it be "often regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood", so I think this would mean creating a split between the two lists. Kahastok talk 19:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It is fine to say in the Donestk page they declared independance, but no one has ever recognized or agreed to that. I'd want to see a few good reliable sources - more than say they cail the criteria. Legacypac (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

To accept a level of sourcing, I need to be persuaded that the inclusion criterion (that a state must "satisfy the declarative theory of statehood" or is "often regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood") is met. At the very least, that requires that the source explicitly invoke the declarative theory and apply it to the case at hand. This source does not do this.
Moreover, it requires that the source make the case unequivocally, or that it make it clear that such a viewpoint is held by a significant number of people. This source does not do this. They are called "contested territories that could be described as de facto states" (emphasis mine), and the case is "debatable". At this point, we still appear to have no diplomat, no lawyer, no academic who accepts without reservation the case that states exist here.
The reason for all this WP:WEIGHT. At the bottom, note the three bullet points:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
The point of the inclusion criteria is that they are (intended to be) the standard that takes us from point 3 (extremely small minority) to point 2 (significant minority). Every other entry on this list meets this standard very clearly. At this stage, I do not believe we have demonstrated this for Donetsk and Luhansk. Kahastok talk 17:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
As much as my instinct still tells me they need to be added to this list, I've got to admit, I have been convinced by the arguments made by Kahastok, Arnoutf, and others. There have simply been no reliable sources found actually depicting any declarations of independence, and, unless there is some kind of agreement reached on the ground (unlikely, I know), I do not expect this to change anytime soon. Through exhaustive efforts made by editors such as HighFlyingFish, attempts have been made to try and find this elusive source, but to no avail. One thing I am sure of, if something ever does change on the ground, the discussions around this subject will resurface once again in all its fury. So watch this space Yelysavet, as I believe that I am not alone in my instinctual thinking towards this one. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Armenia

I'm confused as to why Armenia is included on this list. Supposedly Pakistan does not recognise Armenia as a country, but this seems to be more in the category of symbolic gestures or "not having diplomatic relations" (e.g. US-North Korea, etc.), rather than analogous to (e.g.) Nagorno-Karabakh or Somaliland. In fact every other country on this list involves a territorial dispute. Additionally, the sources are pretty poor quality and both appear to be translations. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

What would Pakistan not recognize Armenia or even care? What other country is purported to be the rightful owner of the Armenian territory? Armenia has been a distinct country for 4500 years though part of various empires most recently the USSR. Legacypac (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Countries do this sort of stuff as another way of protesting the actions of another country. I do not pretend to understand the specific reasons why the Pakistani government felt the need to entirely withdraw the formal recognition of Armenia, and not merely withdraw from its diplomatic relations with the country (yes the two concepts are separate and distinct from each other), but the fact remains that they have done so. We have appropriately noted it as such on the article. Withdrawing from diplomatic relations is far more common though, countries do it all the time to each other. Additionally, it is considered far more extreme, severe, and insulting to have withdrawn the formal recognition of a country, or it's right to exist (As Pakistan has done so here with Armenia). I would suggest looking up the definitions of these two terms if they are found to be confusing (I'm directing that at you @Ivar the Boneful). As for the question of who would Pakistan consider to be owner the territory of Armenia if not Armenia itself, there could be several possible answers. They could consider that one of Armenia's neighbors rightfully owns the land, that it should still be considered land owned by the USSR, or the Ottoman empire, or any number of former political entities that existed previously over the territory we now call Armenia. Or they could think that the land exists as terra nullius and does not belong to anyone at all. Again, who knows what the Pakistan government's stance is on this issue, the only way someone would ever be able to find that out is to ask them themselves. Few enough people have ever cared what their opinion is on the matter to have asked them that specifically, and to have had it reported broadly, but I suspect that the Pakistani government themselves have not put enough effort into the withdrawal position to have even thought about who would own the land if not Armenia. In my opinion, that is the case the majority of the time when a country "withdraws" formal recognition of another country in this way, as it is meant as a protest. Even the concept of "withdrawing" recognition in this way can be silly one when it is not specifically backed up by some claim of alternative ownership, but the fact remains that it is a legal concept that can be utilised in this way. Politics can get very complicated when it comes to the reasoning of why a country acts a certain way or not, but it does not really matter very much to us or to this article, as the article has a specific function. That function is to list, in a simplified manner, the "countries" in the world that currently have a limited recognition, regardless of the justification or reasoning that is being used to not do so. If someone wishes to understand why the unusual status exists for a specific country then they should go and research that specific case in more detail, either in the articles about the said state, the page about the dispute, or elsewhere in the world. I would strongly encourage you to go and do so, if the subject matter interests either of you so much. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Republic of Logone

Why is the Republic of Logone not included in this page? I understand that as it's situation as part of a warzone, much like Donetsk and Luhansk, could exclude it from the main list, but surely it should at least be given mention in the "excluded entities" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

First of all, not included is something else entirely from excluded. Secondly it should not be included because it does not meet the requirements as it is unrecognised (not limited recognised). Thirdly Donetks is mentioned as an example. That implies there are many more such instances but the mention being an example, not all can or should be listed. Arnoutf (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Logone hasn't actually declared independence (yet?). Their leader calls it an autonomous entity on the path to independence. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, this entity clearly belongs instead on this list: List of active rebel groups#Groups that control territory, where it is currently already present. As the situation is not stable and the 'state' fails the criteria of "a defined territory" and "a permanent population" as it is listed in the article. Notwithstanding that the principal rebel group (Séléka) that made the declaration has subsequently disbanded, and the conflict is now still ongoing only against Ex-Séléka members. In fact one of the cities supposedly under occupation by this claimed state (N'Délé) seems to be under the actual control by UN peacekeepers. In addition, it does not seem to be very clear if the original declaration was intended to be one of independence, or just a declaration of autonomy from the central government (i.e. not independence). So the applicability of any of these 'claims' to be a state with no recognition can very much be called into question. However, while having noted all of this for the Republic of Logone case, I feel that I must point out to @Arnoutf that the article's title is: List of states with limited recognition. "Limited" in this case meaning some or none. In other words; less than than the 'total' recognitions (<n), and not; less than the 'total' but not including 0 (<n, n≠0). Subsequently, listing states without any recognition is acceptable, provided they meet the declarative theory. The most classic example of this is the case of Somaliland, which we actually do list in the article, since it has 'limited' recognition. Somaliland's 'limited' recognition is so extremely limited that it actually is equal to 0, but it is still a 'state' as defined regardless. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
While true that Somaliland is not recognised I would consider it a special case due to its longevity (declaration in 1960) and size (both in population ~3.5M and size). Other self declared states like Principality of Sealand are not listed. So this category is a bit of grey area. Arnoutf (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Not really. The difference between Somaliland and micronations like Sealand is well-understood in the literature.
The point is that being a state is A Big Deal. Per WP:REDFLAG, we need to tread with caution with "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community". In this case this is the international community. If the prevailing view of the international community holds that no state exists, we need to be very sure of ourselves - which means we have to have high quality sources - to contradict them.
So how do we list Somaliland? The sourcing available for Somaliland meets that test. Somaliland is, both in popular and academic discussion, the archetypal example of a state that exists without recognition. We have similarly strong sourcing for other relevant entities here. But by far the majority of putative states cannot meet the standard. You'll be hard-pressed to find a serious academic, diplomat or international lawyer who will treat Sealand in the same light. Kahastok talk 19:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I fully agree. My point being that Somaliland has been well sourced for a long time; and Logono does not meet that standard; merely declaring independence (as Sealand has) is not enough. Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Being a state is not "A Big Deal" from a historical perspective, there have been thousands of states in existence throughout the course of history. As for the Republic of Logone, it was not declared by Seleka which fractured well prior to the declaration, but instead by a faction of the FPRC rebel group led by Noureddine Adam. In making the declaration establishing Logone, Adam was careful not to state that he was declaring independence and issued statements that while not declaring independence then, that if warranted he would do so later. As such, there is no need to go into any further analysis at all, given that the Republic of Logone, if it even still exists, does not assert itself to be independent or soveriegn.XavierGreen (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Origins of states with limited recognition

Firstly, @Yelysavet:, this is a breach of an active arbitration remedy described at the top of this page. You should self-revert before you are reported and blocked. Note that per the arbitration remedy, no warning is required before you are blocked for breaking the arbitration remedy.

No, it has nothing to do with the Israel-Palestine issues that the arbitration remedy is aimed at. Yes, it's a completely crazy situation. I objected to these rules at the time, but we are subject to them.

Now, what's the objection?

  • The section refers to UDI as being the principle origin for states with limited recognition. The source refers UDI as being the principle origin for "our selection of contested states". Of the sixteen states listed here, at least eight arose by means other than UDI as described by the source - and you could argue the case for several more.
  • Paragraph 2 takes this as a premise and editorialises on it. It describes secession as "a very ambiguous act", a statement that means basically nothing. It introduces new and unknown concepts such as "states-comrades". It tells us that the international community rejects states with limited recognition, but half the entities on this list are have more than 50% recognition among UN member states.
  • Paragraph 2 also claims that "separatists face extremely serious problems in their attempts to obtain international support". This is plain wrong. Montenegro had a very easy time of it. So did South Sudan. So did East Timor. Indeed, most states in the world today found it trivial to gain international support for their independence when they attained it. Even among the sixteen listed, six have near-universal international recognition and two more have recognition from a majority.
  • The phrase "the other main way in which states with limited recognition have historically formed has been via a dispute" if in any way meaningful is tautological. Every state with limited recognition is subject to dispute, by definition. If they weren't disputed they wouldn't be states with limited recognition.

I find this new section as a whole is discussing South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, Transnistria or Artsakh. But this list includes South Korea, China, Cyprus and Armenia as well. In the context of this list, the new section is inaccurate and fails to make any useful point. It should not be included in this article. Kahastok talk 18:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for requesting that Yelysavet remove that horrid section, it was very poorly constructed from the get go. I did what I could to fix the grammar and remove the invented terms, but it just made too many unsubstantiated statements to ever be viable. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Catalonia

Catalonia is preparing to declare independence on monday[11], if that happens will Catalonia be added to this list? or will it be treated the same as Donetsk and Luhansk? 70.56.180.215 (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It depends on future developments. If any other states recognize Catalonia's independence (not very likely), it will be seen as fulfilling the criteria for this list. If there is no outside recognition I don't think it will happen. Catalonia does not really have the means to enforce its own statehood in the short term, so the declaration of independence will be much like that of Barotseland (not much more than symbolic). Ladril (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Let's wait to see what happens per WP:CRYSTALL. Arnoutf (talk) 06:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, lets see what happens first, the situation is still very much in flux. Wiz9999 (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The principle players - the Spanish and Catalan governments - have made their positions plain though. It may be in flux, but we can reasonably predict the scenarios that might arise in the short term (say, before the end of the month) at least for the purposes of this page:
  • No declaration (or other assertion) of independence takes place, in which case we do not include Catalonia.
  • A declaration (or other assertion) of independence takes place, but no UN member recognises it, in which case we do not include Catalonia.
  • A declaration (or other assertion) of independence takes place and another UN member recognises it, in which case we do include Catalonia.
I find it highly unlikely in the short term that an appropriate level of sourcing will show up demonstrating that the declarative theory is met (it takes time for the situation to stabilise enough for a sensible analysis to be made and for the sources to be written) so I ignore that possibility.
I think it is useful to spell out where we are on this, per the existing consensus practice, in attempt to avoid the otherwise-inevitable misunderstandings that would take place. In particular it is useful to be crystal clear that the simple act of declaring independence is not, in and of itself, enough to be listed here. Kahastok talk 10:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
We should stick to the criteria for inclusion as it has been listed in the article. Yes, this would generally correspond to the three courses of action as you have them listed. However, with regards to the second option, although I do agree completely with you that we will need sources, I do not believe that finding such sources will be as challenging as you suspect. If it does end up going down this declarative theory route (i.e. if it declares independence and no one recognises it), I think we should all agree that it not be added without the appropriate sourcing. Sure, I do not expect to see 100s of articles saying it meets the declarative theory on day 1, but within a few days I am certain that suitable sourcing would be located. Additionally, I'm not convinced yet that the whole situation will not descend into some kind of armed conflict, if the regional government does choose to go down the 'declare independence regardless' road. That would also automatically exclude it from this list, as there is an appropriate article for entities who have not yet established a defined territory or permanent population: List of active rebel groups#Groups that control territory. However, I certainly hope for the people on the ground that it doesn't come to armed conflict. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not there are sources stating it meets the declarative theory will largely depend on whether or not the separatists are able to take control of all or the vast majority of Catalonia. Given that Catalonia is in Western Europe, I suspect the event it meets the declarative theory that there will be at least a few political scientists out there posting articles ect with analysis that it does. Its not every day that a new independent state of any kind appears in Western Europe.XavierGreen (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
In order to meet declarative theory criteria Catalonia would need to take control of the internal security forces and delimit a border with Spain. Neither is within the immediate reach of the Catalonian parliament, given the limited resources they control. As I mentioned above, the declaration will most likely be symbolic at first, with the eventual goal of negotiating independence with the Spanish government. Ladril (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, if they do not control their internal security forces, nor have a somewhat well defined border with Spain proper, it will be hard to accept their inclusion. As they would then essentially fail points 1. and 2. (Possibly even 3.) of the declarative criteria, as they have been listed in the article. However, such a situation I would not expect to last for very long though, as it is inherently unstable. - Wiz9999 (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
As you mention, the situation is already generating a lot of social and economic instability in the region. It remains to be seen whether the Catalonian politicians are going to carry out their intent to declare independence, and if they do, how long could the resulting situation be sustained. Ladril (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Catalonia already controls their own internal security forces. The Catalonia police have done battle with the Spanish police. An army though, is a different matter. I don't think anyone in Spain is interested in a civil war. Legacypac (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The control that Catalonia will have over its own local police in the event of a declaration of independence is not yet clearly established. Whether they would be able to keep the Spanish security forces out (or whether they would even try, for that matter) remains to be seen. Ladril (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, they have just done it. The leader in Catalonia (Puigdemont) just made his independence declaration right there in the Catalan Parliament on CNN and BBC. I imagine the parliament there will approve it shortly. Now the wait begins, either to find a source stating that they will be independent, or for another country to recognise them, or for Spain to assert their power over the region, or for the situation to become violent. We will see soon enough... - Wiz9999 (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Dutch TV claims he called for a dialogue with Spanish government as Catalonia now has the right to independence - but not actually declared it. So we need mainstream agreement that what he said was indeed declaration of independence and not a "tactical withdrawal" (BTW quote of BBC: "seeks independence talks" CNN: "delays split to pursue talks" so not really declaration of independence on either source) Arnoutf (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, he declared the intention to become independent, but then immediately said "we're suspending the declaration of independence for a few weeks" (see the point timed 18:46). The Catalan government does not consider Catalonia independent, and that position will not change tonight. Kahastok talk 17:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Yep, you are correct. He did indeed not declare it, I misheard what he had said on TV cause he used the words: "follow the people’s will for Catalonia to become an independent state". [12] But the Full sentence was: "As the president of Catalonia I want to follow the people’s will for Catalonia to become an independent state." Implying that it is what he wants, but not what has happened yet. - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The funny thing about it is that some of the Spanish media is saying that they did declare independence unilaterally ([13]), but then suspended it. I'm not too sure I agree with that assessment, but hey it seems like the government in Madrid is taking the same stance on it. I assume that it is so that Madrid can be 'as insulted as possible' by the Catalan government's actions. - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Here is the same article in native Spanish: [14] - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The split is interesting - though to some degree I guess the result is the same. It has produced some bizarre edit wars in a few other articles (to be clear, at least by this article's rules, Catalonia was not technically independent for the 8 seconds Puigdemont took to get from one sentence to the next), but I think the position on the higher-profile articles is clear enough. I guess we now wait to see what happens next. Kahastok talk 20:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, if a state does not assert its independence (or soveriegnty aka: Australia), than it fails the inclusion criteria. For example, Wa State is defacto independent of Burma, but fails the inclusion criteria because it does not claim to be independent. If a defacto independent polity is not dejure independent under its own law, it fails the inclusion criteria.XavierGreen (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The Catalonian parliament has voted for independence: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/europe/catalonia-independence-spain/index.html Ladril (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2017

Put the Catalan Republic in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.153.169.187 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Not yet. It would not be appropriate to add this to the list yet. Please see the discussion above. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

missing

why Rojava, Catalan, Luhansk and Donetsk not in any list?E.F Edits (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Rojava isn't an independent republic/state. And Catalonia has not any territorial control. Beshogur (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
There's a discussion right above here about Catalonia. Donetsk and Luhansk have been discussed many times (see the talk page archives), and their exclusion is explained in the Excluded entities section on the article itself. We have a set of criteria for inclusion, failing to meet that criteria is why they aren't in the list. Alcherin (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Rojava hasn't declared independence. There aren't any sources which have shown that Catalonia meets the declarative theory.XavierGreen (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2017

To whom it may concern: Greetings, editors, I would like to add the Catalan Republic to the 'Non-UN member state not recognised by any state' section, as it had declared independence on 27 Oct, 2017. 221.126.246.2 (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: see arguments above for why. Furthermore much of the "government" have fled to Belgium, and the Parliament has been dissolved: see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41811649 and http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20171030/432484932955/forcadell-desconvoca-reunion-mesa-parlament-disuelto.html . --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2017

Catalonia needs to be on it. I'm just saying, and I'm not Catalonian, but I'm just saying. Minecraftfan04 (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please read the section above your request here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

No it fails both the theories of what makes a sovereign state Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Its notable enough that there should be an explanation of why it is *not* on the page, even if it won't be on the list.

There are many areas in the world that have proclaimed themselves independent without satisfying the criteria for statehood (Barotseland is one example, but there are several others). Why should Catalonia be singled out? Ladril (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Transnistria, Donetsk, Lugansk

Those are puppet states created by Russia in order to prevent development of Moldova and Ukraine. Thus Russia does not recognise their independence, it wants to influence Moldova and Ukraine, but does not want really see these three countries independent. Why we are writing only about Transnistria and not about two other puppet states? Mechanism is the same. Abhazia and Osetia is a little bit different story, there Russian really wants to pull apart those lands from Georgia. --217.105.24.253 (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 12#Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, Donetsk Republic and Lugansk Republic. Reliable sources have indicated that Transnistria reaches the criteria for statehood. Donetsk and Lugansk don't have these sources. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Can this be considered as reliable source? It indicated that Donetsk and Lugansk reach the criteria for statehood. --217.105.24.82 (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
It does not actually make any such indication that I can see. Kahastok talk 11:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
"Week 10 (13/3): De facto states in Eastern Ukraine: People’s Republics of Donestk and Luhansk This module examines the circumstances surrounding the emergence of the ‘youngest’ de facto states in the post-Soviet space: People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk." Kahastok, is not this such an indication? --217.105.24.20 (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
No, it is not.
(We need to prove that there is a reasonably-widely-held viewpoint that they meet the standard of the declarative theory of statehood, most prominently stated by the Montevideo Convention. This source makes no reference to either the Montevideo Convention or to the declarative theory of statehood.) Kahastok talk 15:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Republic of Catalonia Declaration

I'm hearing on the news now that there was a declaration made for independence by a vote in the Catalan parliament. I readily wait to see what the Spanish government does now, and what sourced experts will have to say about it. [15] - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

They have declared a Catalan Republic, I would personally advocating waiting for at least 24 hours to see if there will be a practical implementation as this article only includes administrations that have physical territory etc. PompeyTheGreat (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see at least one recognized UN country recognize an independent Catalonia before we add this to the list. With the exception of special case Somaliland and two frozen conflicts were there is very clear long term defacto independence, every entity here has some recognition. Catalonia lacks both international recognition or a long history of defacto independence without serious challenge from the country they broke from. I'm going to request page protection as I expect quite a few efforts to edit this issue in and out over the next few days. Legacypac (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The time frame doesn't matter. What matters is sourcing. If we have sourcing that says they meet the declarative theory of statehood (the Montevideo criteria, ect) then they qualify for inclusion on this page. International recognition or a "long period of time" is not a criteria for inclusion on the page.XavierGreen (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I just read up on the latest sourcing and the vote looks to be symbolic. What we do know is that Spain is going to move into Catalonia to seize regional government buildings. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
XavierGreen If I read up on that under Sovereign state the declarative theory (which is only one theory) requires 1) a defined territory; (Catalonia has that) 2) a permanent population (Catalonia has that); 3) a government (with invocation of Spanish article 155 Catalonia arguably does not have that) and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states (at best there is no evidence that Catalonia has that). So for now, it does not seem to meet even those most relaxed definition of state. Arnoutf (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The parliament and catalonian government offices are operating, so they would meet number 3, and the capacity to enter relations with other states is satisfied by any government acting independently. Polities that fail the 4th criteria are polities that have no authority to conduct international relations like suzerain states and protectorates, which possess internal sovereignty but are restricted from conducting foriegn relations by their parent state or "protector", a current example would be Azad Kashmir, which is touted by its government as a state under pakistani protection (it is dejure not part of pakistan) and has no capacity to enter international relations. What is ambiguous at this point is whether the separatist government has any actual control over any territory and thus whether or not they meet the first two inclusion criteria. But, all that is meaningless anyway, because as of right now we have no sources stating that they meet the declarative theory.XavierGreen (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Has now got an article at Catalan Republic (2017). Probably best to hold off at this stage, but its statehood is being discussed by politicians around the globe. At the moment is mainly notable for being not being recognized by various entities, which perversely does give some credence to legitimacy. The main reason for not including is that the "republic" is likely to pretty short lived, although somewhat longer than the Catalan State (1934). --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Bizarrely, The Gambia appears to have officially recognised Catalonia.[2] Culloty82 (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, it appears to meet the inclusion criteria then since that is the official account of the Gambian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, i imagine some here would want a more reliable secondary source confirming that. If confirmed, it would then meet the Constitutive theory of statehood, and there is no need to get into any analysis or arguement about the declarative theory part of the inclusion criteria.XavierGreen (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Plot thickens - another Gambian Foreign Ministry a/c claims the other is a fake, but neither have blue ticks - best to ignore the earlier claim for now [3]. Culloty82 (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I called the Press Officer at the Gambian Foreign Minister who confirmed that this was fake news and that their only official Twitter account is @MOFAGambia. JosephDB (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Until just now the Gambian President, Adama Barrow, actually followed the fake account but recently changed to following the real one. That should give enough to show that this is fake news. JosephDB (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Granted that no other country has recognised it yet (and it may well stay that way) but we do have a section specifically for countries that are not recognised by any UN member state. I am unsure why it does not merit inclusion in that. I apologise if this is covered above and I have missed it. What is/are the criteria that are required for inclusion which Somaliland meets but Catalonia lacks? Surely that is a reasonably low bar? Arnoutf has suggested 4 criteria but it seems that three of those are met (although maybe not for long) and the final one is arguable. Are those the correct criteria? Please can somebody summarise as I don't seem to be the only person who is confused by this? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure. What makes a sovereign state is not clear cut, but our page lays it out pretty well. Scholars nearly all agree Somalialand is the classic case of a dejure State that simply lacks any official international recognition but in every other way exercises sovereignty as a state. It has a defined territory, government, and population. For many years it has exercised exclusive police/military control (a monopoly on violence) over it’s territory completely independent from Mogadishu based players. It even operates international trade offices and representations that are embassies in all but name (Taiwan does similar). It has managed to attain all the trappings of statehood because Somalia is a failed state and Somalialand is the best politically organized, least poor, safest part of Somalia. Somalialand lacks international recognition from other states because there is no real benefits (military, economic, political etc) to any other state in recognizing them. There are simply downsides - like emboldening amd setting precedent for separatists in other countries and or their neighbors and friends. Major powers and adjoining states prefer the status quo of a peaceful stable Somolialand over the alternative of recognized independance that starts open war there. For example the US would not want to recognize Somalialand which might embolden Scottish or Quebec or Puerto Rico independence, which would weaken the US and it’s friends. The other two “comtries” listed are long standing frozen conflicts where no recognized State has recognized them but the states exist on the ground. None of these three line up with the facts in Catalon - its not a stable lomg term sitaution at all. Spain clearly has significant military control. Spain may control the government by disbanding the regional govt. Spains allies and neighbors will not be supporting an independant state either. Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment although I've commented I thought I'd sum up the current situation (but I am not closing it). There doesn't appear to be consensus to add Catalonia, as there are no reliable sources that it fulfills declarative theory, but also there are serious concerns about its stability as an independent state. It looks likely editors will try to add it nonetheless, but it would be against consensus as it currently stands. I would suggest if changes occur (particularly with new sources) then they should be discussed here first before an addition. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I would actually make the argument that the Republic of Catalonia has yet to establish weather it actually passes the number 3. criteria of the declarative theory, (as we have listed the criteria in the article) i.e. if it is actually "a government" or not. This is because we simply do not know yet if the civil service, the police, the tax/revenue service, the members of parliament, the military units in the region, etc. will stay loyal to the decision of the Catalan parliament, or the government in Madrid. In other words, the ability of the parliament to actually govern the declared state and form an actual "government". Remember it has only been a couple of hours as of yet, not even a single day has passed. I have no doubt the the loyalty of the people on the ground will become clear enough in the coming days as to which of the two governing bodies that they will be listening to, but I fully expect Madrid to not wait around to see if their federal representatives will stay loyal to them or not. I expect swift action from them to enforce their decision to remove the Catalan government will be coming soon. In either case, we need to keep cool heads with regards to adding this potential state to the list when it is clearly still a developing situation. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20: have you got an opinion ? --Panam2014 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

So, would I be correct in summarising that this essentially boils down to which civil servants turn up for work on Monday morning, which government they decide to accept instructions from, and whether they can hold that line for a day or so? --DanielRigal (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
To some extent yes. But your summary is oversimplified, as it is about essential state functions being operational, and this becoming a stable situation (i.e. one where no imminent close down is likely) and all that as reported by a reliable source. Arnoutf (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Panam2014: In my opinion, this is up to an analysis of the already explained criteria of the declarative theory about how a de jure state comes into being, namely:
  1. a defined territory
  2. a permanent population
  3. a government, and
  4. a capacity to enter into relations with other states.
If we consider that pro-independence parties do not control most of the most-populated cities in Catalonia and are, thus, not aligned with the Catalan government on its quest for independence, as well as the fact that the Spanish government seems to have been successful in gaining control over the regional police force (the Mossos), it's unclear whether the Catalan Republic meets the 1 and 2 criteria in practice (it'd meet them in theory, but would have struggle trying to assert control over the entire territory). To make things even more complicated, the Val d'Aran has shown concerns on the independence declaration as well.
Then, criteria 3 would be disputed, as the Spanish government has officially fired the regional authorities but some of these do not seem to consider themselves sacked (yet some others, i.e. the Mossos command, do).
Finally, I don't think there's proof as of yet that criteria 4 is met at all.
So, while it's obvious that there was an independence declaration and that the Catalan Republic exists as a proclaimed concept, it's dubious whether it is actually a state in practice. Impru20 (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, until we hear from sourced experts on the subject. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://foreignpolicy.com/2008/02/26/how-to-start-your-own-country-in-four-easy-steps/
  2. ^ https://mobile.twitter.com/MFAGambia/status/923984589596626944
  3. ^ https://mobile.twitter.com/MOFAGambia

This was a good solution to the question why not listed. It was reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_states_with_limited_recognition&curid=523670&diff=810694268&oldid=810640484 Legacypac (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm adding a section to discuss possibly including this below. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

West Papua

The Republic of West Papua, has resumed its defacto existence, as West Papuan separatists have seized control over several villages in the territory they claim. See [[16]]. As such, i've added them to the list of rebel groups controlling territory.XavierGreen (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Now that West Papuan separatists control land (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-10/papua-separatists-dispute-indonesia-claim-of-hostage-taking/9140340) should we include them, given that, from the Republic of West Papua article "The proposal is supported by Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands with the Parliament of Vanuatu passing the Wantok Blong Yumi Bill (Our Close Friends) in 2010 officially declaring that Vanuatu’s foreign policy is to support the achievement of the independence of West Papua.[1][2][3]"? Do the Vanuatuan and Solomon Islander acts constitute recognition? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Based on your text (and assuming that sources could be verified), it is not recognition. This describes an aspiration, these countries want West Papua to be independent, which is different from recognising that it already is. Kahastok talk 10:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, as was the case with Catalonia, a statement of support simply wishing for the ultimate independence of a state does not equate to recognition of said state. Besides, in this case, there seems to be a military standoff currently underway between the two sides. This, along with the relatively small size of the territory currently occupied (villages, not towns or cities) would mean that the situation could potentially shift rapidly at any instant with quick exchanges of territory of significant size relative to the occupied land. This does not equate to a stable situation, and the proposed "state" of West Papua as currently having a "1. a defined territory" and a "2. a permanent population", meaning it would presently fail these criteria even if it were to be recognised by Vanuatu, the Solomon's, etc. We will see if this changes in the future though. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
It doesnt meet the inclusion criteria because there are no sources stating that it does. But contrary to what you state, it does have a defined territory, the territory of the former Dutch colony of Netherlands New Guinea (it just doesn't control the cast majority of that territory), and the villages they control are permanently occupied. Nothing in the declarative theory of statehood says that there must be a "stable situation". In fact if you look through the talk page archives of the list of sovereign states page, you will clearly see that the reason that was added was for situations where a state has multiple competing governments, (like Syria, Libya, China, ect). It was added specifically so that competing governments which have control over territory would not meet the inclusion criteria (because otherwise they technically would), the "stable situation" verbiage was added so that Taiwan/ROC would be included while eliminating the possibility of multiple entries for Libyan/Syrian governments, ect. Also, pursuant to the inclusion criteria, a de-facto state that has been recognized is added to the page under the constitutive theory, it need not even control territory (like the Papal States post 1870) or have a "stable situation".XavierGreen (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Just remember that "claimed territory" does not equal "defined territory", just look at the amount of land claimed by the ROC (File:ROC_Administrative_and_Claims.svg). Is it really realistic to expect the Taiwanese government to ever regain control of those obscure bits of Afghanistan, Russia, India, etc. that it claims? (In some crazy scenario where it overthrows the PRC and seizes all of the former Qing dynasty territory, then perhaps, but how likely is that to realistically occur in the modern world?) Besides, if we were solely looking at claimed territory then we would have to consider all the micronations that claim land (or perhaps even those extreme people that claim bits of Mars and the Moon). Some of the micronations are quite effective in their control of the land away from the actual government that owns it. Even more have established many aspects of state-like functions, such as Sealand. This micronation has arguably the best case for being an actual "State" out of any of the modern micronations, as it claims territory, issues passports, has a currency, government representatives, a civil service, etc. The real debate over Sealand is weather or not it actually controls the territory it claims. Similar arguments could be made over West Papua, as it claims a very large territory, but only controls a very small portion of that. A small band of people/rebels, with guns, claiming a large portion of one of the Earth's largest islands does not a state make. They need some kind of legitimacy behind them along with the ability to actually "govern" said territory. They actually score very well on the legitimacy part of their claim; declared independence in past, historically was separate from Indonesia, etc., but do they have effective "control" over governable land? or will they lose it all tomorrow as soon as the Indonesian government decides it's bored with the situation and attacks them with its full weight? Thus, it's hard to separate them from any other minor rebel group, or group of individuals claiming random bits of land around the planet. Many similar such rebel groups, with much weaker legitimacy, have far more tenable situations than the current West Papuan militia. So, for recent developments such as this, stability matters. Similarly, governability matters. Now I agree, that the term we use; a "defined territory" is not a good term, and it is vague as to what this actually means. "Controlled territory" would be a much better term to use, as it can often be more clear as to who "Controls" the territory in question. However, I would be hesitant to always use "defined territory" to mean "claimed territory", as you seem to be suggesting, as claims can often be ridiculous and unachievable (Hamas claims all of Israel, for example). The fact remains that the criteria for determining states is "defined territory" so we must use it. I feel that "defined territory" would be more appropriately determined on a case by case basis, as "defined" can mean different things based on a specific situation. However, such things are best left up to experts to properly inform us on anyway. At a bare minimum, we can say that the "defined territory" encompass "controlled territory". Perhaps more though, situationally dependent of course. However, to play it safe, as we are not experts and obtaining sourced material matters with this grey area stuff, we can not go beyond our bounds and have to assume that the "defined territory" is not any greater than the "controlled territory". Even this is a stretch, as what we really should be doing is finding an appropriate source that says that an entity in question has a "territory" of some definition and not making that decision ourselves. I have no doubt if the situation in West Papua stabilizes, and, even if the rebels do not obtain any more territory than the handful of villages they currently control, over time this will slowly be seen more and more as a "State" by the experts. This will be because the rebel's ability to govern this small portion of occupied land will increase over time. We would then be able to record it on the article as such, as realistically we should be able find a suitable source stating that this is the case eventually. Examples of separatist rebels slowly become more and more like actual "States" have occurred often in the past. Most notably with Tamil Eelam, as by the end of the existence of that "State" they even had their own airforce with jet aircraft, along with many other apparatus' of state that they used to effectively govern the land that they controlled. The main reason they were ultimately not included on this list was that they, in the end, had decided to go for regional autonomy instead of full independence despite having refferenda, etc. proposing such an independence, and no verifiable declaration of independence was ever made by the "state". Thus stability and governability matters in these cases (Note; similarly to Tamil Eelam the main reason why we have excluded Luhansk and Donetsk is because no verifiable source has been found stating that they have claimed actual "independence" over just internal "autonomy", despite exhaustive efforts to locate such a source). I actually agree with you that the way the inclusion criteria have been handled previously has been to automatically include "states" that have obtained recognition by another "state" of some sort. What I was merely saying previously was that I would expect criteria 1. and 2. to have been fulfilled long before recognition occurs by any other entities. As, normally, we would expect an actual "state" to have met all four of the acceptance criteria prior to them being actually recognized by anyone else. Few "states" have actually ever made it onto this list after having achieved all four criteria without getting any recognition whatsoever (Somaliland is the most notable example of this of course). However, it is even less common to find an included state that does not meet the four criteria but has already obtained some recognition. Palestine and SADR are the only ones that I can think of, but in both these cases it is still debatable one way or the other if they meet the first three criteria or not. Were there a country with a less debatable position than Palestine and SADR, an argument could be made that this hypothetical "state" be included in the governments in exile list instead, as HighFlyingFish states below (SADR itself operates mostly in Algeria as it is). There is little to separate the Papal States post 1870 from the more modern concept of a government in exile, as this is effectively what the Holy See became after Italy annexed the nation. The only unusual thing about this state of affairs was that the Holy See was permitted to continue to exist within Italy at the time. With regard to your argument that the declarative theory dos not excluded "states" that have not yet achieved a "stable situation", while this may be the case, it is going to be hard to make the argument that a "state" that does not have some kind of a stable situation will have an unambiguous permanent population and an unambiguous defined territory. Additionally, although the "stable situation" statement may have been added for other reasons as you have clarified, the fact remains that it is currently within the article, and we much operate with it as such. Just as we have to currently operate with the unfortunate encompassing of this article within the Arab-Israeli conflict arbitration above, despite its limited relevance to this list. - My apologies for the long response, I just felt that it was needed. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I am convinced with regards to West Papua. But also if "pursuant to the inclusion criteria, a de-facto state that has been recognized is added to the page under the constitutive theory, it need not even control territory" wouldn't we be compelled to add internationally recognized governments in exile which are outside of this list's scope? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The Indonesian government has retaken the villages that were controlled by the Papuan separatists, thus the Republic of West Papua no longer exists defacto.XavierGreen (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Yep, this is exactly why we should be hesitant to list anything on here as a "state" if the circumstances around it are still developing. Transient situations can change quickly, despite the seemingly well established legitimacy of a given claim. I'm sure that the West Papua independence issue will flair up once again in future, as I do not believe that this has now settled the matter permanently. It has been a longstanding issue, and I can only hope that one day it gets resolved peacefully, for the sake of those affected. - Wiz9999 (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible New Excluded Line

It has been proposed that the following line be added to the excluded entities section:

* Regions and dependencies of sovereign states which have unilaterally declared independence but which lack the infrastructure of government and do not satisfy the declarative theory of statehood, such as the Catalan Republic.

Should this new line be included in the article?
The benefits for adding the proposed line are that it will clearly establish that the current situation of the Catalan Republic will mean that it is excluded from this list without a doubt, as has been discussed previously (I emphasize the word current here as I am aware that the situation could change for Catalonia in the future, say after the election in December, it may need to be considered for inclusion on the list once again following a status change). Also, this will firmly establish how we are to handle a "Catalonia-type" situation were it to occur again in future. The disadvantages are that it adds complexity to the rules we use to include and exclude "states"/"entities" on the list, which may be more difficult for newer editors to adhere to, and that there is nothing in the declarative theory or the constitutive theory that mentions "infrastructure of government" in terms of defining "states". Feel free to propose modifications to the statement if needed. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • "may be more difficult for newer editors to adhere to" I feel like given that nearly every edit on this list for the last many months is reverted, the rules are already hard enough for anyone, including new editors to adhere to. Adding one more clause really won't make a difference either way. I'm not sure what to do about this, because the intersection of a deeply theoretical concept (the declarative theory) and something so intertwined with people's lives (what country you're in) will inevitably generate passionate confusion. Regardless, I feel like there is a disconnect between what readers expect unrecognized states to be, and what appears on the list (most notably with DNR/LNR). --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this sentiment - Wiz9999 (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Catalania lacks a government that has a Monopoly on violence and that has the capacity to enter into relations with other states. This was also true before the regional governmemt was disbanded because the regional government was subject to the Spanish government/crown. "Infastructure of government" is not the right term - to be a state requires not only a government (which even a strata corp or a city has) but a "sovereign government" that is not suject to any other government, has a monopoly of violence (or nearly so, with no other government having a superior claim to such monopoly), ability to levy taxes, and capacity to enter into relations with other states. Legacypac (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
So would you like the statement added or not? Or added with the phrase Monopoly on violence instead of referring to "Infastructure of government"? - Wiz9999 (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Catalonia already fails the declarative theory already because it controls no permanently populated places and cannot enter relations into other states (it has working government to my knowlege, not even a government in exile). The current inclusion criteria reflect the declarative and constitutive theories of statehood. Any deviation from those leads to original ideas being injected into the article, which violates the no-original research wikipedia protocols. However, contrary to popular belief, there are and have been other theories on statehood espoused throughout the centuries some of which have fallen to the wayside over the years.XavierGreen (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I do not feel we need this solution. Unlike Donetsk and Luhansk (for example) the Catalonian declaration has not resulted in massive edit wars on this page. Therefore, we can take it for granted that people understand the difference between Catalonia and the entities listed here. Ladril (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Well the page getting Extended-confirmed-protected has somewhat forestalled the edit-warring. But yeah IMO the Catalan government right now is a Government in Exile, so already covered by the last criteria in Excluded Entities. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the intention behind the proposal, but I think it would cause more trouble than it's worth. The purpose of the "Excluded Entities" section is to prevent edit wars by summarizing the results of talk page discussion on a number of entities that have been strongly debated in the past. If we start stretching it to include every place that declares independence we risk it becoming unmanageable. The section is already quite long, and further expanding it would run the risk of WP:CREEP. Ladril (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I would support; but I would try to include it in that section on the basis of being a proto-state. My feelings on Catalonia is that it is best represented as a proto-state (and is in fact included in that article); a region with a strong desire for independence (as demonstrated by the declaration by the regional government) but with little evidence of actual independence. While proto-states are mentioned in the lead, they are not mentioned in the "Excluded entities" section, which has caused confusion (some editing disagreement plus a lot of discussion). I have edited the above for a possible entry (with credit to Wiz9999):
* Proto-states which have unilaterally declared independence, but which lack the infrastructure of government, and do not satisfy the declarative theory of statehood, such as the Catalan Republic.

--Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Are there any reliable third-party sources which refer to Catalonia as a proto-state? If not, the statement may be WP:OR. Ladril (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Well the article uses Griffiths, Ryan (2016). Age of Secession: The International and Domestic Determinants of State Birth. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
It looks it might be a good idea eventually, but I still believe we should resist the temptation to include too many instructions in the article. If we go down this road people are going to try to insert additional lines to account for every possible case that might arise in the future. This will just be a massive waste of time and effort for the editors involved (in fact, it is already beginning to look like that). Ladril (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
While that is true, if you look at the huge amount of discussion, as well as disagreements in edit history, I think it makes a case for inclusion. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no need to add any new "exclusion" notes, Catalonia controls no territory so it fails the declarative theory and it has no international recognition so it fails the constitutive theory. People will continue to try to put it on the page along with a myriad of other polities no matter what text is written on the page.XavierGreen (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I never said that Catalonia is a state, it fails both declarative and constitutive theory. However there are reliable sources that it is a proto-state (not the same thing as a state, please read the article). Recent page history will demonstrate that this confuses people, perhaps a line in the "Excluded Entities" would help to clarify. After all that is the purpose of the section. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
We should not be adding yet more lines to the page in response to a short-term situation. I say we wait and observe how edits unfold over the next few months. Assuming the situation remains the same, it is very likely that the interest in adding Catalonia will evaporate pretty soon. If that is the case, we will not need ot add yet another instruction to the page. If a situation such as persistent edit-warring develops, we may consider adding another line. Ladril (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to tally up the stance of those that contributed to this discussion so far:
Those that are abstaining from taking a stance either way for the inclusion of this new exception: Wiz9999, HighFlyingFish
Those that agree with an inclusion: --Jules
Those that disagree with the inclusion: XavierGreen, Ladril

From what I see, it does not look good for the proposed inclusion of this entry. Also, I have not been able to tell from Legacypac's comments which way he/she stands on the issue. (Just to clarify, I make no claim to be the author of the statement proposed for inclusion, it was originally added to the article by the following user; Smurrayinchester, in the following edit [17]). - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of states with limited recognition. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 04:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Checked and reviewed as bot requested. Updated first reference. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of states with limited recognition. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 17:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

checkY Checked references, bot corrected broken link nominally. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresentation in "UN member states not recognised by at least one UN member state" Section

Non-recognition of one state by other state, by default, means that this other state is not recognized by the first state as well. Thus, there is a sort of misrepresentation when you indicate, e.g., Armenia in the list as a non-recognized country (as it is not recognized by Pakistan) without indicating in the list that Pakistan is a non-recognized country as well (not recognized by Armenia). 212.34.225.50 (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It’s not necessarily a reciprocal thing, one county can unilaterally recognise another without needing itself to be recognised. For example, it is in the interest of Somaliland to recognise everyone else because it wants to be recognise by them. To this end Somaliland, along with some of the others on this list including Northern Cyprus and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, quickly recognised Kosovo's independence in the hope that Kosovo would be seen as a precedent for there own future recognition. Kosovo in return has not recognised them. Relating to the specific Armenia/Pakistan question, I've never seen any sources which say that Armenia does not recognise Pakistan. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 14:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually I do not understand the position of Pakistan. Does it consider this land belonging to Azerbaijan? But Azerbaijan itself recognise sovereignty of Armenia. So Pakistan want to force Azerbaijan to annex the land of Armenia, does it? Stupid situation, as for me. --Shmurak (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree, the situation is foolish. However, countries do this sort of stuff as a way of protesting the actions of another country. I do not pretend to understand the specific reasons why the Pakistani government felt the need to entirely withdraw the formal recognition of Armenia, and not merely withdraw from its diplomatic relations (yes the two concepts are separate and distinct from each other), but the fact remains that they have done so. It is in a country's rights to recognise who they choose. It is considered a far more extreme, severe, and insulting thing to have withdrawn the formal recognition of a country (it's right to exist). As for the question of who would Pakistan consider to be owner the territory of "Armenia" if not Armenia itself, there could be several possible answers. They could consider that one of Armenia's neighbors rightfully owns the land, that it should still be considered land owned by the USSR, or the Ottoman empire, or any number of former political entities that existed previously over the territory we now call "Armenia". Or they could think that the land exists as terra nullius and does not belong to anyone at all. Again, who knows what the Pakistan government's stance is on this issue, the only way someone would ever be able to find that out is to ask the Pakistan government themselves. Few enough people have ever cared what their opinion is on the matter to have asked them that specifically, and to have had reported it broadly, but I suspect that the Pakistani government themselves have not put enough effort into the "withdrawal" position to know or care what the answer to that question might be. - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Wiz9999: are you sure that Pakistan withdrew recognition of the state? Maybe it has just withdrawn recognition of the government? This is more probable, as far as I can see. --Shmurak (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Sources say that they have withdrawn recognition of the "state"; https://news.az/articles/armenia/86325. Therefore I have no reason to doubt that this is the case. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I concur. Outback the koala (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Can someone

Does anybody have access to this paper? It seems to be very important to the article. --Shmurak (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe ask the author directly? https://twitter.com/JamesKerLindsay/status/887949137852989440 - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2018

It is listed that PRChina is not recognised by "at least one UN member state" with that listen as being ROChina (Taiwan). The ROC is, however, not a UN member state, due to PRChina vetoing its recognition by the UN. This means that the labelling of PRChina's lack of recognition is incorrect and should, therefore, be either removed from the list or edited. Proof: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/taiwans-un-dilemma-to-be-or-not-to-be/ Efdu (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done various UN countries recognize ROC not PRC Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 Note: Setting request to answered, as another editor already declined. OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Wa State

Wa State is an unrecognized country that seems to meet the declarative criteria. Should it be included in the list? From what I can tell, it belongs under the "States not recognised by any other state" section. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 14:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

While Wa State is certainty de-facto independent in practice, the United Wa State Army and its political wing which control Wa State have never actuality declared independence nor do they actually assert that they are a sovereign state. As such they fail the declarative theory of statehood and the inclusion criteria. As far as i have been able to discern, the only Burmese rebel group which controlled territory that ever declared independence was Khun Sa's Shan State Restoration Council, which declared independence in December of 1993 and existed defacto until 1996 when it disintegrated, with some of its members forming Shan State Army - South which continues to control territory, although its not clear that Shan State Army South abides by the 1993 declaration of independence or considers itself to be an "independent state" at all. A few other minor separatist groups in Burma which control no territory have issued declarations of independence in the past, but none of these currently or ever in the past have controlled territory and thus fail the inclusion criteria.XavierGreen (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
From what I could tell, it seems to meet the following:
  1. a defined territory - borders & capital defined
  2. a permanent population - estimated 558K population
  3. a government - presidential one-party rule
  4. a capacity to enter into relations with other states. - declared independence on 17 April 1989, decreed by Myanmar to be a self-administering region on 20 August 2010
It appears that Wa State does consider itself to be an independent state (as they did declare independence on 17 April 1989). I can't think of a reason for excluding it.
I have never seen a source which states that Wa State has declared independence, simply repeating what is present on the Wa State's wikipedia is insufficent as the date given there for the supposed declaration of independence is unsourced. Like i said above, its clearly defacto independent, but if Wa State itself does not claim independence it fails the inclusion criteria on its face and the declarative theory of statehood.XavierGreen (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Even if we accepted everything you said as accurate without sources (which you do not provide), your own personal original interpretation of the Montevideo Convention is not relevant here. We require independent reliable sources that consider the situation in terms of the declarative theory and conclude that a state exists. Kahastok talk 21:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I've spent some time browsing through any source I could get and I agree with the overall point that we should not add Wa State to the list, though it is worth noting that the sources seemed to generally agree that 17 April 1989 is when Wa State established itself as a self-ruling entity through its United Wa State Army, and it is also worth noting that the only source I could find that said it considers itself to be a part of Myanmar cited Wikipedia as its source. The best course of action is to do nothing at the moment. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 13:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Can absence of any recognition be considered as "limited recognition"?

The question do we need to include in our list named "List of states with limited recognition" UN non-member state not recognised by any state (i. e. now it is only Somaliland). It seems to me that we need to demand from state be at least recognised by one UN non-member state in order to be included in the list. Bottomline: does the word limited in the title includes 0-recognition? (absence of recognition from any polity). Is "None" within the subset of "limited"? --Shmurak (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  • if you agree with me that "none" is not within the subset of "limited", then, of course, I propose to write the criteria for inclusion as:
The criteria for inclusion means a polity must claim sovereignty, satisfy the declarative theory of statehood, lack recognition from at least one UN member state, and be recognised as a state by at least one state (UN member or not, but which also satisfy the declarative theory of statehood). --Shmurak (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Somaliland is a special case well supported by independent reliable sources. Is there some reason you are worried about this one inclusion? In all areas except being recognized by other countires they are as much or more a country than some UN members and semi recognized states like South Oddessa (Russia backed/controlled), Palistine (Israeli controlled), Northern Cyprus (only Turkey supoorts) etc. No other country controls Somaliland and the failed state of Somolia is in no position to press or enforce its claim. Legacypac (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Somaliland is well-established and belongs on this list. In any case, since the name of the list need not define its contents, if we felt that Shmurak's argument had merit the better solution would be to rename the list.
But notice that the proposal has other effects. Specifically, entities that are recognised by at least one UN member state would no longer be included if we cannot prove the declarative theory of statehood. Also, note that the standard of recognition required is not UN member states, but any state where we can prove the declarative theory. This is a major problem:
  • Firstly, non-UN members where the declarative theory is met are South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus et al. If a state is only recognised by entities that themselves are near-universally rejected internationally, that's not significantly better than being recognised by nobody at all.
  • Secondly, it would lead to the paradox that Somaliland would be excluded, but any state it recognised would be included (because it is a non-UN member that meets the declarative theory of statehood.)
  • Thirdly - and perhaps most importantly - for most UN member states we can't prove that the declarative theory is met to the standard we require. Why not? Because scholars don't tend to study the obvious, well-established and trivial. That's fine when you have an either-or condition. Every UN member and observer is recognised by a majority of UN members so our inability to find detailed studies is irrelevant. When there is no UN recognition, it's reasonable to ask for studies to back up what is after all an unusual situation.
But the rule proposed removes the either-or. That means that we are no longer able to just give the likes of China and Armenia a pass through that part of the criteria. We have to prove that they meet the declarative theory - and we probably can't - or remove them. Moreover it means that recognitions don't count unless we can prove the declarative theory, leading very probably to the perverse situation where recognition by South Ossetia counts but recognition by Russia doesn't. Kahastok talk 17:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Renaming the list seems like a much cleaner, simpler solution. Perhaps "List of States Without Universal Recognition"? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)--HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Only the first word should be capitalized. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

No thanks. Somalialand is a state with limited recognition too. No nation state officially "recognizes" it for various reasons but many states accept it's travel documents and otherwise informally recognize it. The title is just fine. Legacypac (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

To answer the original question, yes limited includes unrecognized states. The list's limit is universal recognition. Any states with less recognition than that are listed, which includes no recognition at all. The key point is that they must be verifiably sovereign states that are unrecognized. TDL (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally I see no special reason to rename the list. To my mind, "limited recognition" does include no recognition. Kahastok talk 14:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I have always taken the term "limited", as it is used in this list, to mean "some or none" with regards to recognition. Yes, I do know that in English lexicon "limited" can sometimes mean just "some" and NOT "none", especially when talking with respect to say ... mathematics or something. For example, it is easy to imagine a series of numbers being either "unlimited", "limited", or "absent". This I believe is the sort thinking and logic that the proposer Shmurak is using when he proposed his change/revision. However, English is (as always) a tricky and fluid beast of a language and I do not think that I am not incorrect in saying that "limited" can also mean "absent" or "none" in certain situations, in addition to "some" (or alternatively also "many"). I do believe that with regards to this article we do have such a situation, and the word "limited" is being used appropriately here. Therefore I am in favor of not changing it, but I can understand why some people would want this list to subsequently not include "absent" recognition states. However, if a suitable alternative name that is widely accepted by other contributors is found, I would not be opposed to it either (I did briefly talk about all this a few months ago, in a now archived discussion).
Regardless of the title, the acceptance criteria is really what is the most important aspect about how this article functions, and less so its title (redirects do exist for a reason). For the same reasons as Kahastok has mentioned above I do not think we should change the acceptance criteria to have a recognition AND declarative theory type statement. That would indeed get us into some very muddy waters. I am happy with the current way of having the inclusion criteria have a recognition OR declarative theory type of statement. Yes, it makes life a little difficult for us editors to source statements when a state does unilaterally declare independence, but it also avoids some other bizarre side effects. I am 'content' with the current inclusion criteria as they are, but I am also willing to admit that they are not perfect but are simply 'good enough' for the purposes of this article as it currently stands. This is, of course, unless someone raises a very credible point that would require adjusting them... - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Just for your information: I have just asked James Ker-Lindsay privately which items should we include in the list of states with limited recognition. And got the following answer: "If it is a list of states with limited recognition, then any territory that has not been recognised by any UN member should by definition not be included. However, I can see the argument for having bilateral recognition from non-UN members, under certain circumstances." --145.108.173.220 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I oppose the proposal to increase the threshold of inclusion. None is within "limited" in this context for the following reasons: This article is for de facto and unrecognized states that either have partial recognition or satisfy the criteria of the declarative theory. Neither "Unrecognized states" nor "Partially recognized states" is an inclusive and accurate description for groupings of states such as Abkhazia, Transnistria, Somaliland, Artsakh, Palestine, Taiwan, Western Sahara, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, and Kosovo because despite being in a similar situation (lack of full membership in the international community) they have varying degrees of recognition ranging from very little to very many countries recognizing them. "States with limited recognition" is a neutral and inclusive title here, and it would not be beneficial to exclude Somaliland due to a lack of any recognition, or to discuss whether or not Artsakh having recognition from many US States but not the US as a whole counts, or whether or not Transnistria having recognition from other states with limited recognition should truly constitute limited recognition. These states exist on a spectrum, but what they have in common is a limited amount of international recognition. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

West Papua?

They are recognised by 2 UN members; Vanuatu, and The Solomon Islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.115.232 (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

do you have any sources to support this? Outback the koala (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
It was easy to find sources regarding support for West Papua by Vanuatu: [18] and Foreign_relations_of_Vanuatu#Wantok_Blong_Yumi_Bill:_recognition_of_West_Papua (sources cited in this sub-section) However, West Papua is a former unrecognized state, unless you can find something that suggests they maintain self-rule free of Indonesian interference. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that the criteria of this list would allow an unrecognized state to be included if it is recognized by UN members, regardless of whether it currnetly has self-rule. This is consistent with the constitutive theory. However, support is distinct from recognition. Do any of these sources say Vanuatu recognizes West Papua as a soverign state? If so, then we should add it. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

They certainly would be a state with limited recognition if there are some UN member states recognizing the sovereignty of West Papua, but from my understanding we are to prioritize de facto over de jure here and list states based on the declarative theory. While some states such as Abkhazia have recognition from a handful of UN members, we still list Somaliland which is recognized by none because Somaliland is a de facto unrecognized state. Sourced content from Republic of West Papua shows that despite being a former country from the 60s, the official position of Vanuatu as recently as 2010 remains that Vanuatu supports West Papuan independence. West Papua meets points 1, 2, and 4 of the declarative theory (clearly defined borders, permanent population, very evident capacity to enter relations with Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands), but it's questionable if it has a de facto government. However, the fact that Vanuatu has expressed readiness to support any sovereign West Papuan state is reason to believe that if and when West Papua unambiguously exists as a de facto state that it absolutely belongs on the list. Despite being part of Indonesia, West Papua's WPNA actually did declare independence in 2011 and the 2017 temporary seizure of villages under the flag of West Papua demonstrates a continued active effort to hold de facto territory. Because of that, I agree that If sources state that Vanuatu recognizes West Papua as a currently sovereign state, we should add it as the activity of the WPNA shows an ongoing territorial dispute. In the event that West Papua successfully holds territories for an extended period of time, I can see the WPNA being analogous to the Polisario Front, but not yet. The question that we need a clear answer to is is West Papua a state with limited recognition from Vanuatu, or does Vanuatu simply support the movement for independence? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 14:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up comment: I've checked the sources on the foreign relations section and I've confirmed that Vanuatu recognizes West Papua as a currently sovereign nation-state and has requested of the UN Security Council that West Papua gains UN observer status. Foreign_relations_of_Vanuatu#Wantok_Blong_Yumi_Bill:_recognition_of_West_Papua news source news source 2 US library of congress source citing additional sources I say we add West Papua per the April discussion on inclusion: I am happy with the current way of having the inclusion criteria have a recognition OR declarative theory type of statement. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything in those sources saying Vanuatu recognizes West Papua. What it says is that parliament "support the achievement of the independence of West Papua", ie they recognize that they have not yet achieved independence, but support future independence. TDL (talk)
I also think you're drawing out conclusions that aren't there. Vanuatu aren't requesting UN observer status- the request is for observer status at regional forum, the Melanesian Spearhead Group. Vanuatu definitely supports West Papuan independence, but it does not recognize it as a state now. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with TDL and Super Nintendo Chalmers on this one, the sources simply do not state that West Papua has been officially 'recognized' by Vanuatu. They merely state that Vanuatu will "support the independence struggle of West Papua", and that the observer status application has been made for the Melanesian Spearhead Group and potentially will also be made for the Pacific Island Forum one day. I will point out that membership/observer status in either of these organisations does not necessarily constitute recognition of the 'state'. Merely recognition of the 'entity' or 'organisation'. I will point out that in the Pacific Islands Forum one of the 'members' is not a 'state', French Polynesia. Additionally, among the observers of this forum are Guam and the Asian Development Bank, neither one of which is a 'state'. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_states_with_limited_recognition/Archive_12&oldid=1142341518"