Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Ambazonia

Is there a particular reason why Ambazonia is currently unlisted? Ambazonia is a member of the UNPO under "Southern Cameroons" ([1]). The Ambazonia article is in poor shape and needs more sources for verification, but the statements missing citations are very easy to find and I intend to add more sources later tonight if possible. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Being a member of UNPO doesn't tell us anything about sovereignty though. So we'd need evidence/discussion of that, and most importantly sources which describe Ambazonia as a state. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

If it is of interest, this source is evidence of Ambazonia's interim government and this source mentions that there is evidence to suggest that the separatists control territory.

Neither of your sources even mention the declarative theory, nor does either demonstrate recognition by a UN member state, so they are of no relevance to us. If there are no independent sources in the world that argue that a state legally exists, then Wikipedia shouldn't either, even if random non-expert Wikipedia editors believe that it does. Kahastok talk 22:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The source you provided states "Some evidence suggests that separatists control territory", that's not a definitive statement that they do in actuality control territory. I saw a news article which stated that the ADF repulsed a Cameroonian government attack on a town several days ago, but that source didn't state whether or not the ADF remained and continued to occupy the town openly after the Cameroonian government had left. Right now Ambazonia appears to be in a putative condition. It clearly has at least the nucleus of an insurgent government which is attempting to gain control over the area it claims through military force, but i have yet to see any source which states that it is openly governing any of the territory that it claims or that it actually controls any territory at all.XavierGreen (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Near as I can understand from the sourced material on this particular subject is that the local forces/governing entity that are desiring independence (the Southern Cameroons National Council) are basically based entirely in the principal town/city in the area. This town is called Bamenda, which at this point seems to be completely outside of the government's control. Since much of the surrounding countryside is nearly entirely depopulated (the surrounding province of Northwest Region (Cameroon)) it is arguable whether the separatists do or do not actually control/govern this whole province or not. One thing that is clear about the situation though is that this province is only half of the proposed 'state'. The other half of the 'state' that the separatists desire is fully under government control (the province of Southwest Region (Cameroon)), the population of which is far more spread out and rural than the city that is currently controlled by the separatists. Regardless, it has yet to be seen if the declarative theory has actually been met in this case as no actual 'declaration' announcement seems to have been made and documented. Also, it is hard to argue if the 1st through 3rd points in the declarative criteria (as listed in this article) have been satisfied, as they require "a defined territory", "a permanent population", and "a government", none of which it is certain this 'state' actually posses. This is mainly due to the nature of the forces in control of this town as they appear to be largely local protesters and strikers propping up this "Southern Cameroons National Council" as their public face. However, it remains to be seen if this is a situation where the dog is wagging the tail, or the tail is wagging the dog. See [2] for a more detailed chain of events. - Wiz9999 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A more legible version of the same article: [3] - Wiz9999 (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Since none of those sources mentions the declarative theory either, WP:NOTFORUM applies. Kahastok talk 17:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, I agree. My point was that, if anything, the situation on the ground points to the declarative theory not having been met. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources you cited date from 2017, since then there was a declaration of independence (see here [4]), the formation of an Ambazonian "government", and a militarization of the pro-Ambazonian forces. There are some sources that i've read that indicate some rural areas and small towns are under direct control of the rebels (see here [5], but the situation quite murky. The main rebel organization appears to be the Ambazonia Defence Forces, but its not clear from what i'm reading whether or not the "Ambazonian Government" controls any territory, or whether or not it abides by the October 1st, 2017 declaration of independence. Maybe there is a government that controls territory claiming to be an independent state called Ambazonia, but again maybe there isn't. There's not enough data for anyone to tell right now as far as i'm concerned. I'm not even confident enough to add it to the list of rebel groups that control territory, and if it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria for that it certainly doesn't meet the declarative theory of statehood under anybody's analysis.XavierGreen (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Aside from the declaration statement, not much has pragmatically changed since 2016/2017. The situation is still murky and hazy, and sources can't seem to agree as to who is really in charge over there. It is best to do nothing until information becomes more reliable. - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Abkhazia note

I’ve made an update here [6] but I have a user questioning the neutrality of my change. Is there any user who could give an impartial improvement to the note? Outback the koala (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Your request on this talk page is borderline WP:CAN, as that template is not used on this article/list in any way, shape, or form, and discussions that affect that template really belong on its own talk page. This request that you have made would better belong on the talk page of the newly-revised project page for limited recognition; Wikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognition.

Nevertheless, I will do what I can to assist on that template. I feel that you have started an edit war with @User:Giorgi Balakhadze on that template due to a failure to compromise with the wording/language being used in the "de facto" nature of Abkhazia's consideration of itself as a state. I will make an edit to show how a compromise can be made. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Montenegro

Can you add Montenegro to the UN category? According to the B92 report, 13 states that do not recognize Montenegro are: the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, São Tomé and Príncipe, Somalia, Tanzania, and Tonga.

B92: Montenegro still unrecognized by 13 "exotic" countries

--108.162.179.236 (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Montenegro fits the mould. All other states on this list are unrecognized due to a dispute - Disputed states redirects here. With that list of non-recognizing states, it doesn't seem like there is a dispute - rather, they're tiny countries, and it's likely just some form of oversight. Whether that falls in the scope of this list? I'm Not sure. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the lack of recognition in this case is oversight, laziness, or apathy. None of the listed countries dispute Montenegro's right to exist or its existence. Legacypac (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This is interesting and certainly worthy of at least a side note for why it is excluded, even if it's a footnote at the bottom and not in the same list as PRC China or Armenia. I don't think these countries being "tiny countries" is a relevant factor, but there doesn't seem to be any indication that it's due to a diplomatic dispute as was mentioned by both Bellezzasolo and Legacypac, so it would be out of place. Chances are these countries simply didn't issue any official statement when Serbia and Montenegro became Serbia and Montenegro, but that would be speculative of me to assert, and for that reason I also cannot and will not say I actually know that these countries just accidentally didn't recognize them and that there's no dispute, so I also won't say that listing Montenegro alongside countries like Armenia is off the table. I support mentioning it, but as for where it should be mentioned, I'm Not sure. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If all the instances of this sort of "non-recognition" were to be added to this article, it would become twenty times its current size. Plus, that news article is more than two years old. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Why would anyone in Tonga or Somalia care that Serbia and Montenegro decided to live in different houses? It's just not a big deal worth writing a statement over. They got a desk at the UN, good enough. Legacypac (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• If a state is a full member of UN it means that all other countries recognize it unless they explicitly declare that they do not recognize such a country. Aotearoa (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Exactly correct, signature of a treaty with another country is a dejure means of recognition. Only those countries which voted no when Montenegro joined the UN would be non-recognizors, but Montenegro was admitted to the UN by acclamation. See here [7]. The only current UN member state admitted after Montenegro was South Sudan, but there is likely a multilateral treaty signed between the two since South Sudan's admission to the UN which Montenegro did not oppose.XavierGreen (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I will point out to everyone here that we have a documented/sourced statement here telling us of a state's "Limited Recognition" status. Whats more this source actually lists the states that have failed to have universally applied recognition to Montenegro. For all the claims that there are many other states in this situation, and that Montenegro is not unique, I disagree completely. How many other sources have been found listing other countries' failure of recognition of another state? None, as far as I can tell, and certainly none with such specificity and clarity within them too! Now I am sure other situations do exist where country A has failed to recognise country B by indifference and has never had any official contact with country B by chance, but I cannot see any of these quirks of politics having been documented as thoroughly as this one has been.
However, I propose that Montenegro still NOT be included in this list. And the reasoning for this is simple. The criteria for including states on this list tells us that situations where states are slow to establish relations with other new states are to be excluded from the list. Thus Montenegro cannot be added to the list as this is very clearly the current situation (the source generally is in line with this), and there is essentially no dispute to their independent status. I admit it is the best case example we have of this situation, certainly the best documented, but the criteria are clear in this matter.
Some may now be scratching their heads as to where in the criteria this is stated. I will now point out that it is not in the official "Criteria" section, nor in the "Excluded Entities" list, but in the "Background" section. The first two sentences of which state: "Some states are slow to establish relations with new states and thus do not recognise them, despite having no dispute and sometimes favorable relations. These are excluded from the list."
Now, having made others aware of the location of this statement, I would like to make an actual proposal: That the two sentences be moved to the "Excluded Entities" section where it belongs, and is apparent for all to view.
I oppose removing this statement from the article as that would open it up to a flood of several "Montenegros", all much more poorly sourced and far more difficult to determine the truth of the "claim" than in Montenegro's case. Instead we should maintain the current criteria, and appropriately position all of it. Besides, situations like this normally get cleared up eventually over time anyway. Seeing as that article was written in January of 2016, I have my doubts as to weather all 13 of those states have still not, by chance, communicated with Montenegro in an official capacity. By now I imagine at least one has probably done so. I leave my proposal up for discussion. - Wiz9999 (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Wiz9999's proposal. It makes sense to me. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Montenegro clearly does not belong in this article, not even as "excluded." Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Wiz9999's proposal per their rationale. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment I think its important to limit this language be for UN member states only.XavierGreen (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment The original news article by the RTCG, which B92 quotes, seems to be this one, in Montenegrin, dated 20 January 2016. It compares Croatia (independent since 1991), saying that Croatia is not recognized by 15 countries: Bahamas, Burundi, Bhutan, Djibouti, South Sudan, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Niger, Rwanda, Somalia, Central African Republic, Swaziland [now officially eSwatini], St Kitts and Nevis, Tonga, and Tuvalu [these are actually 16 countries; original order preserved]. --Theurgist (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: The order is basically alphabetical, except for Centralnoafrička Republika (Central African Republic) being placed between Somalija (Somalia) and Svazi (Swaziland). In the Croatian language, that country is called Srednjoafrička Republika, while the others are basically the same, Croatian and Montenegrin being essentially variants of the same language. Looks like the RTCG got the list from some Croatian source, copied and localized it but neglected to adjust that name's position. This is in response to Wiz9999's comments about there being no thorough lists of countries not having recognized a specific country. Probably such lists do exist, as such information would at least be of interest as a curiosity in the country concerned. Otherwise I agree with Wiz9999's comments and support their proposal. --Theurgist (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably every country in the world, except perhaps the very largest, will not have been formally recognized by a few other countries on the other side of the planet. To list all such instances of "non-recognition" would be impossible, and to list only those that happen to have been the subject of a newspaper article would be arbitrary. If the proposal is to leave it clear that such instances of non-recognition are outside the scope of the article then I agree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as this discussion has been open for over two weeks now with no opposition to the suggested change, I will implement it now. In addition, I will add the term: "UN member states" to the text as @XavierGreen has suggested. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawal of recognition discussion

A discussion has been started on Template talk:Numrec#Withdrawn Recognition Currently not Subtracting from the Number of Recognitions that affects this article's use of the {{Numrec}} template. This discussion may specifically affect the {{Numrec/SADR}} value currently in use on this article. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

PRC in the "not recognised by at least one UN member" list?

How is China in this list, when not even one UN member is mentioned as a state that doesn't recognize it? The only country mentioned is Taiwan which is not a member of UN. I think this should be fixed: Either mentioned which UN member doesn't recognize China, OR, remove china from this list. Please discuss if you disagree, other wise it should be fixed. Solino_{the Wolf} 04:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? In the PRC section it is clearly stated that there are 17 states plus the Holy See that currently recognize the ROC. The description then goes on to explain that the PRC does not accept recognition from states that also recognize the ROC, and that the majority of these states have never recognized the PRC government, with two exceptions. Wiz9999 (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Liberland to be added on list due to Somaliland's Memorandum of Understanding

Liberland and Somaliland signed memorandum of understanding. That, in my opinion, should be seen as mutual recognition of two states, so both Somaliland and Liberland should fit into category of "States recognised only by other non-UN member states"

Sources: https://liberlandpress.com/2017/09/press-release-free-republic-liberland-successfully-begun-mutual-recognition-process-republic-somaliland/ https://dotsub.com/view/5aa2f32a-bf8f-44bd-93ef-cb526f069815 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.129.40 (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything in there that says Somaliland has recognized Liberland.

Besides, this is precisely the type of example that the second point of List_of_states_with_limited_recognition#Criteria_for_inclusion is intended to exclude. TDL (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This entity will continue to be excluded regardless, due to the third bullet point in the excluded entities section that specifically states micro nations are not to be included. Wiz9999 (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistencies - number of recognitions

For some states - e.g. Taiwan - only the current number of recognizing states is listed. For others - e.g. the SADR - the total number of ever recognizing states is listed. I believe we must strive to take the same approach towards all entries in the table, i.e. either one or the other, or both for all of them. Ladril (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That was my point precisely within this discussion here: Template talk:Numrec#Withdrawn Recognition Currently not Subtracting from the Number of Recognitions. In my opinion, there needs to be some harmony across all wikipedia in how this issue is tackled, but so far we don't have a consensus. - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Taivan is technically a different case, because his Government is considered and recognised as representative of whole China, and the (de)recognition of Taiwan does not mean (de)recognition of new State, but only move the recognition from one of the Chinese Government to the second. Total number of recognitions in the case of Taiwan makes no sense. For all other countries the total number of ever recognizing states is relevant and it can be listed. Jan CZ (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Your argument about Taiwan is only one way to look at the issue. There have been several situations in which states have had to deal with the fact that there are two de facto separate states which use the name China. Taiwan itself has sought in the past to be recognized as a UN member state alongside the PRC. So I wouldn't say it is just a matter of switching government recognition.

As for the other states, my point is that it is far more useful to list on this page how many countries *currently* recognize each state. The total number of ever recognizing countries has been listed for some states and not others for no apparently logical reason. I would also contend that it is a historical piece of information which makes better sense to include in the recognition articles for each entry instead of this page. Ladril (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I also noted in that discussion that I am unhappy with the output from {{numrec}} given that the number by default includes those who have withdrawn recognition. But more generally, I agree that we do need to handle this consistently and we don't currently. Kahastok talk 21:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I also concur that withdrawn recognition should not be counted, this page is meant to reflect the current situation not a historical analysis of each polity's diplomatic relations.XavierGreen (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

And what is the "current situation"? We know exactly total number of recognitions, we know exactly so-called withdrawal of recognition. But what does it mean "currently recognize"? One view is = total number minus withdrawal recognition. Second point of view is = total number. Serbian opinion is that 111 countries currently recognize Kosovo, Kosovan opinion is that 113 countrires currently recognize Kosovo. According to the Government of Kosovo Suriname curently recognizes Kosovo, because the act of withdrawal recognition is invalid under international law. Bringing the total number and the number of withdrawals is NPOV. Putting the "current number" = 111 (or 113) is a POV that ignores the position of the other party of the dispute. Jan CZ (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

A country that withdraws its recognition no longer recognizes the existence of the country in question, Suriname does not recognize Kosovo. Any sovereign country can withdraw recognition of another, its happened countless times throughout history.XavierGreen (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As I brought up in the Template talk:Numrec discussion, this source [8] clearly states that 'withdrawal' of recognition is something that governments CAN do to one another. Now I have no doubt that a source exists out there that states the exact opposite, that they CANNOT, however, I think it is clear that the concept of "withdrawal" is in dispute, from one state/government to another. I will again re-iterate that the safer, most non-POV, thing to do here on wikipedia is to rather not include a country in the base figure of Template:Numrec, who's most recent statements on the disputed subject have made a clear intention of no longer considering X entity a "state". I stand by this point, and think that wikipedia should not go against the sourced statements of the majority of states who consider withdrawal a "thing" that is do-able. - Wiz9999 (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I am wary of a most recent statement rule because statements are of differing reliability and formality, and can be ambiguous or misleading. If we're looking for evidence of withdrawal of recognition, we should be looking for a clear and explicit change in policy from recognition to non-recognition, and it should be at least reasonably clear that this is a matter of ongoing policy, not a one-off fudge statement made to placate the person the president happens to be standing next to. Kahastok talk 20:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

That is what I meant when I said ‘statement’. I meant an official government policy of withdrawing the recognition of X ‘entity’. According to the majority of reliably sourced citations on the various limited recognition states’ articles, this normally takes the form of a formal written statement given to the media and/or public. - Wiz9999 (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

If we count withdrawn recognition as recognition for purposes of this page, it would mean that Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (which has a government in exile), would still qualify for the page since Georgia recognized it in 1993. It would then satisfy the "recognition by 1 UN member" critera and qualify for inclusion, which i think no one here intends since Chechnya is not recognized by any UN member at present. The whole idea of county withdrawn recognition as recognition is absurd.XavierGreen (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

New source for adding Donetsk to the list

This is the new source. Can we use it? --Shmurak (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily, as the issue with Donetsk (and with Luhansk being in the same boat) is that it hasn't necessarily "declared" independence. I will point out that both entities (Donetsk and Luhansk) have been sourced as being recognized by South Ossetia ([9][10]), thus negating the need for either to be classified under the declarative theory. As they would in theory both be defined as "states" in this article's criteria under the constitutive theory, if they actually consider themselves as such. If it was found that they actually had "declared" independence back during their creation in 2014, or now do so subsequently, then they would immediately be put in the article. However, all that can be found so far from both states is a vague reference to no longer being under the control of the central Ukrainian government. The fact that an academic article now reflects the fact that this state has the "trappings of a state" (notice the wording within does not say something along the lines of "state without recognition" making its statehood clear), meaning it now has the structures and institutions of a state-like-entity (ISIS was like this as well but was also never actually a state), and can govern itself in the way that a "state" does not necessarily now make it a "state". It has to "want" to be a state too. If it does not consider itself an "independent" state, then it is not. If it's status changes and it does consider itself a state (by a recognized declaration), then it will immediately satisfy the conditions for being a state due to South Ossetia's recognition. But I know there are those among us that will disagree with me on that point. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The rule for the constitutive theory in this article is that they must "be recognised as a state by at least one UN member state" (emphasis added). As South Ossetia is not a UN member state, its recognition is irrelevant.

Note that there are many states out there that never declared their independence, particularly in Europe and Asia, but also including Canada, Australia and New Zealand. An explicit document or speech declaring independence is not required if they nonetheless consider themselves independent. Kahastok talk 21:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

"in this article is that they must be recognised as a state by at least one UN member state". Ahh, true! I had forgot that we had this UN requirement in this article. I also had forgotten that the reason why Artsakh and Transnistria were currently included was not due to their mutual recognition (along with South Ossetia's and Abkhazia's), but due to them having satisfied the declarative criteria (along with Somaliland). So yes, I agree, Donetsk and Luhansk still need to demonstrate an acceptable form of declaration of independence OR be recognised by a UN member for them to be included on this list. They may satisfy the 'constitutive theory' as the theory is defined, but will still remain off this list due to this list's circumstantial requirement of UN membership recognition (kind of a UN-Member-Only-Constitutive-Theory requirement for this list). - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say add them if and only if we can find a declaration of independence. All I've managed to find was a report that they voted for independence in a referendum, but not that they've signed a declaration of independence. For that reason, I think it's accurate to instead regard Donetsk not as a self-declared state with limited recognition, but rather a proto-state, and they will continue to be listed as such on WP:WPLR until we can confirm that they've declared independence. Otherwise, it is not based on the declarative theory that we can consider them a self-declared state with limited recognition. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't we also add them if a UN member state recognized them? Not saying that's happened, just taking issue with the "if and only if". --HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I had in mind the declarative theory criteria, but this would in fact make Donetsk a constitutive country in the eyes of at least one UN member, and therefore we could very reasonably include them in the list of states with limited international recognition. Donetsk and Lugansk are already entities recognized by other unrecognized entities, but the reason for excluding them there is that we cannot confirm that they declared themselves independent countries. However, as a state with limited recognition, South Ossetis cannot speak on behalf of the international community and make Donetsk or Lugansk constitutive countries with limited recognition. If a UN member recognized them, that's certainly valid reason to include them. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please cite the part of this document that argues explicitly that the declarative theory is met in the case of Donetsk. The description given in the abstract is insufficient. Kahastok talk 21:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Donetsk declared independence on April 7, 2014 [[11]], feeling that a vote on the issue was needed, the DPR government held the referendum on May 11 and then on May 12, 2014, declared independence once again. This source [[12]] has a direct quote from Denis Pushilin (co-chairman of the DPR government) explicitly stating that independence had been declared. There are a host of sources available that confirm that the DPR declared independence on May 12, ie [[13]]. Also, "a signed declaration of independence" is not required to satisfy the declarative theory, indeed Australia has never issued a "signed declaration of Independence" but regularly asserts itself as a sovereign state and clearly meets the declarative theory. If the source mentioned states that the DPR meets the declarative theory of statehood, that's a sufficient basis for listing the DPR as it is for listing any other polity.XavierGreen (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I've got to admit, this source [14] has convinced me. It is hard to argue with a direct quote (despite its presence on an obviously biased source). Indeed, a "signed declaration of independence" should not be necessary for a declaration to be upheld, as the word "declaration" is defined as being "written or oral" [15]. The example that was given of "Australia" is a very bad example, as Australia meets the constitutive theory of statehood anyway, due to its widely held acceptance and international recognition. Regardless, the single thing that was most holding us back with regards to Donetsk was a lack of clearly sourced info regarding their original declaration. Was it for autonomy within Ukraine? Was it for actual independence? It was hard to say, as there was very little sourced info at the time of the precise wording being used. However, this source clarifies it. It has always been obvious that Donetsk conducts itself like an unrecognized state, but it was less clear if this was formally supported at the state level. I would now like to advocate for its inclusion. After all, as was discussed above, it does seem to meet the constitutive theory as it is normally defined. However, it is ONLY excluded from this list due to the fact that South Ossetia is not a UN member, which is normally not considered, due to this list's UN-Member-Only-Constitutive-Theory requirement (I mention this here again as it absolutely supports the declaration of this "state" that was quoted as having been made, justifying its own inclusion in the list). Now, is there any clarification of the wording used by Luhansk back in 2014? As these two entities always seem to behave in tandem with one another. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure this is as convincing as it should be, as it appears that Denis Pushilin who declared the independence had at that time more or less appointed himself as head of state; so it remains unclear whether he had (even among the anti-Ukrainian groups) the authority to do so. If he had, the independence statement would probably have been repeated after it had all settled down a bit. That this did not happen does not support this idea. Arnoutf (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Pushilin was the head of the Donetsk legislature at the time of the declaration of independence, and was reaffirmed as the head of the legislature under the constitution that was adopted after the referendum, even if he originally had appointed himself, he was acknowledged by the governing apparatus of the DPR at the time of the declaration which is all that matters.XavierGreen (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Please cite the part of that source suggests that some form of analysis has been done with respect to the declarative theory of statehood and that that analysis holds that the theory is met.

Personally, I have seen nothing in this thread that would cause me to reassess my conclusion that there is no case for including Donetsk. The fact remains that we can cite no academic, no government, no lawyer - on the entire planet - who has assessed the situation and concluded that a state legally exists in Donetsk according to the declarative theory.

In terms of the constitutive theory, I don't believe Donetsk meets it "as it is normally defined". The constitutive theory holds that a state's legal basis is through recognition by other states. This is not the same as saying that any entity that has any level of recognition at all is definitively a state, still less that a stste with extremely limited recognition (such as South Ossetia) can then itself create states by recognising other entities as states.

The reason why we require UN membership for the constitutive theory is because, in the words of WP:WEIGHT, "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". If the only people who recognise Donetsk are an entity that itself is almost universally considered not to be a sovereign state, that is an extremely small minority. Kahastok talk 21:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No one is disputing that South Ossetia is in the minority on their view that Donetsk should be a state. Additionally, no one denies that South Ossetia itself has a questionable authority to even rule on the matter. I imagine that is why the rule that only states "be recognised as a state by at least one UN member state." was introduced. This ensures the appropriate use of WP:WEIGHT, since it is hard to argue that the UN does not represent the majority of views/states in the world. I will emphasize that I do not see anyone advocating for there to be an alteration to this criteria, as the rule seems sensible enough, and avoids a lot of complications with micronations all recognizing each other. However, the problem with the kind of thinking that you are using, that we should only consider WP:WEIGHT above the evidence that we can source, is that if we were to only consider WP:WEIGHT then we would logically exclude SADR, Taiwan, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, Artsakh, Transnistria, and Somaliland, due to them all having a less than 50% recognition by UN members. This would result in a "list of states with limited recognition" only including UN members, Palestine, and Kosovo, which wouldn't make much sense. Because of this we permit the aforementioned entities, despite their low recognition acceptance numbers, as this is just plain WP:COMMONSENSE to have a list of limited recognition states actually have states with limited recognition on it. The evidence/sources that have been gathered for these listed entities has been accepted by the editors as meeting all the criteria of the article. Now, the only point required for discussion with regards to Donetsk is weather the "declaration" is acceptable as an appropriate "declaration of independence" or not. Unfortunately, however, this is mostly up to each editor's opinion, because Wikipedia's guidelines are not clear as to what specifically is to be considered a WP:RELIABLE source. In my opinion this source [16] is a "News Organisation" (although admittedly a heavily biased one). Nevertheless, to me it is a news organisation and thus I must accept it, and the quotes within it, as being reliable. I do not see a requirement in WP:RELIABLE for an "academic", a "government", or a "lawyer" for an article to be considered RS. You may have another opinion on the matter of its reliability, but that is up to you. I have already attempted to find an alternate source with this quote, but sadly I was unsuccessful in finding another source that does not directly reference this rtbh article. I'm sure if I put the question of including Donetsk to a vote right now it would come up half in favor and half against, as that seems to be the split in the opinions of commentators in this section at the moment. Meaning we are at an impasse, and this this needs to be resolved if we are to move forward with regards to this issue. Weather or not you believe that Donetsk is a state based on the constitutive theory "as it is normally defined" is simply a matter of your opinion, no more or less valid than my own. In reality it does not matter, since, regardless, in the list there is a requirement of UN member recognition, which Donetsk obviously does not have. I do ask however for you to consider that if we are too heavy handed with WP:WEIGHT then the whole world will be blind. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that WP:WEIGHT distinguishes the case where "a viewpoint is held by a significant minority" from the case where "a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority". There is nothing wrong with our mentioning minority views - in fact per WP:WEIGHT, we have to. Provided that it's a significant minority. Provided that the viewpoint merits the weight it's being given based on its prominence in reliable sources.

Whether Donetsk considers itself independent is significant but insufficient. Ultimately, the question here is the same as it has always been - whether we there is a significant minority opinion per WP:WEIGHT that the declarative theory is met, i.e. that Donetsk is legally a state under that theory.

In four and a half years of asking this question, not a single editor has ever presented even one source that actually argues that the declarative theory is met in the case of Donetsk. This thread does not appear to be an exception. Until such sources are presented, or sources are presented demonstrating diplomatic recognition by a UN member state, Donetsk cannot be said to meet our criteria and must be excluded. Kahastok talk 20:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

We'll we don't know what this source states, because no one so far has apparently had access to it (or been willing to pay to get access to it).XavierGreen (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Wiz on being swayed. What we needed was something that stated unambiguously that Donetsk declared itself to be independent. Nobody disputes that Donetsk is at minimum a proto-state; they govern their own territory and population, they have the means to enter into relationships with other states with limited recognition (and evidently Russia which de facto aids them), these things are not disputed and they're well documented by sources. All that was missing was something that stated that Donetsk considers itself independent and that they have declared it. We got it. Of course, the recognition by South Ossetia is not enough to state that Donetsk exists constitutively because an entity excluded from the international community can not speak on behalf of the international community. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The claim "[w]hat we needed was something that stated unambiguously that Donetsk declared itself to be independent" is not correct.

What you are doing is providing your own original interpretation of the Montevideo criteria. I've seen many such interpretations while I've been here. Some of those interpretations are so lax that just about anything vaguely resembling a state could meet them. Some are so strict that you'll have difficulty passing some well-established states through them. Yours is just another.

We cannot point to a single WP:RS that has done the analysis and concluded that Montevideo is met. No source we have seen says, suggests, implies, or otherwise asserts that Donetsk meets the standard of Montevideo. In fact, so far as we know, the only people on the entire planet who believe that Donetsk meets the standard of Montevideo are Wikipedia editors. This is the exact position we've been in since 2014 - nothing substantive has changed.

Until that changes - until a significant minority in reliable sources (not of Wikipedia editors) holds that Donetsk meets the standard of the declarative theory, or until they are recognised by a UN member state - we cannot include Donetsk on this list. Kahastok talk 08:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry i'm out of touch here, what is difference between somaliland and donetsk, which source state that somaliland met the declarative theory Afif Brika1 (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

A suitable source for Somaliland is in the article, and there are numerous other examples in the article list of sovereign states.

The first is The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States by James Ker-Lindsay (2012), which says: "In addition to the four cases of contested statehood described above, 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."

Nobody has ever provided anything remotely reaching this level for Donetsk. Kahastok talk 16:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Kahastok, if you are talking about remotely reaching this level, you can take quote form Nina Caspersen paper "Making Peace with De Facto States" // The Annual of Language and Language of Politics and Identity. — 2016. — Vol. 10. — P. 7-18. — ISSN 1805-3769. — «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.» --Shmurak (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Which doesn't mention the declarative theory of statehood either directly or via Montevideo. And is thus irrelevant to this discussion. My point stands. Kahastok talk 16:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I note again, that no one thus far has seemingly been able to access the source that sparked this discussion, so we still don't know what exactly it says. It might be good enough, it might not, no one knows as of yet since no ones been able to read it.XavierGreen (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• I have access to this paper. One quote from it: "From Somaliland in the Horn of Africa to, more recently,

the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics in Eastern Ukraine, de facto states function as alternative structures of authority in a post-1945 international order dominated by recognized nation-states. De facto states are separatist polities that rule autonomously over portions of territory,

establish governance structures, but lack international le- gitimacy." --Shmurak (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

So that's fairly explicit that they are not legitimate states per this source then. And note that that doesn't mention the declarative theory or Montevideo. Kahastok talk 21:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• I found another paper: Galina M. Yemelianova (2015) Western academic discourse on the post-Soviet de facto state phenomenon, Caucasus Survey, 3:3, 219-238, DOI:10.1080/23761199.2015.1086572 I have access to it (can send you via email, if interested). Some quotes from it:

As noted earlier, it is plausible that the number of post-Soviet de facto states will increase as a

result of the 2013–2014 Ukrainian crisis, which escalated into armed conflict between the Kiev authorities and the Russian- and Russian-speaking majority regions of Donetsk and Lugansk (Sakwa 2015). In 2014 the leaders of both regions proclaimed the DPR and the LPR and formed a confederation – the Federal State of Novorossiya, which sought unification with Russia. Kiev responded with a full-scale military offensive leaving thousands of civilians dead

and many thousands displaced. The conflict has been aggravated by the direct and indirect invol- vement of the USA and the EU – Poland and Lithuania in particular – on the side of Kiev, and

Russia on the side of the self-proclaimed republics. In February 2015, a cease-fire was agreed as a result of the mediation by the leaders of Germany, France, Russia and Belarus. However, the cease-fire has remained fragile and chances for the conflict’s deep ‘freeze’ have been limited. Nevertheless, the dynamic of these conflicts has not been dissimilar to that of the early stages in the development of the four enduring post-Soviet de facto states. Thus, both republics have created their own legislative, executive and judicial bodies and formed their armed forces. By 2015 the estimated population of the DPR was 1,882,600, and of the LPR – 1,197,100.15 The DPR and the LPR are recognized as independent by South Ossetia.

The outlined post-Soviet de facto states form two distinctive groups in terms of geographical

location, size and ethno-linguistic composition of their populations, position within the Soviet hier- archy of nationalities and length of exposure to Russian and Soviet domination.16 The first group

includes Transnistria and the potential de facto states of the DPR and the LPR. All three are located on the plains in the western part of the former Soviet Union. They have relatively large populations: 1,882,600 in the DPR; 1,197,100 in the LPR and 0.5 million in the PMR. They are characterized either by their polyethnic or bi-ethnic composition, and by the poly- or bilingualism

of their populations. Thus, in Transnistria the population is almost equally divided between Moldo- vans, Ukrainians and Russians. There are also sizable Bulgar, Gagauz, Belarussian, German and

Jewish minorities (Diakonova 2006, 6). The population in the DPR and the LPR is Russo-Ukrainian

with Russian as the dominant language. None of them has had pre-existent ethno-territorial auton- omy. All of them have had ethnic Russians or Russian speakers as either protagonists or victims of

ethno-territorial conflict with the nationalizing post-Soviet states of Moldova and Ukraine. All three have had a lengthy historical existence within the Russian Empire and throughout the Soviet period compared to the states they broke away from, post-Soviet Moldova and (western) Ukraine. In the case of Transnistria this has been since the late eighteenth century and in the cases of the DPR and the LPR since the mid-seventeenth century, compared to Moldova and western Ukraine which were incorporated into the Soviet Union only in the 1940s. The other group is represented by the NKR, the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia, all of which are located in the mountainous Caucasus. They have relatively small populations: 141,100 (2009) in the NKR, 240,705 (2011) in Abkhazia and 51,572 (2012) in South Ossetia. The Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossetian Republics are characterized by a high level of ethnic and linguistic homogeneity, while in Abkhazia ethnic Abkhaz constitute

less than half the population. None has had Russians as either protagonists or victims of the con- flicts resulting in their formation. All three have been under Russian/Soviet domination for over

200 years – the same length of time as their respective metropolitan states. Since the 2000s there has been a growing divergence between the NKR, on the one hand, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia on the other, in terms of the balance of power, sustainability, and deployment and scale of armed forces on the ground. Following the Russo-Georgian war of 2008, which resulted in Russia’s recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both de facto states acquired additional characteristics as de facto protectorates of Russia, while the status of the NKR

has remained locked by the political stalemate between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

--Shmurak (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Kahastok: ?? Does this source satisfy you? --Shmurak (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

No, and it probably isn't the best idea to post long excerpts from sources here.

Any source that does not even mention the declarative theory or its codification in the Montevideo Convention is never going to be able to demonstrate that there are experts who believe that a putative state meets the standard of the declarative theory or its codification in the Montevideo Convention. Kahastok talk 21:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2018

Under the section UN member states not recognised by at least one UN member state, in Israel - Other claimants - ::: please change from ::::: "Palestine claims areas controlled by Israel. Subject to the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian peace process and broader Arab-Israeli peace process." ::: to ::: "Palestine claims the Palestinian territories controlled by Israel. Subject to the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian peace process and broader Arab-Israeli peace process.", as it is more clear. Thank you. דוד אהרון 8 (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - MOS:OVERLINK - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency with "Proto-State" page

It looks like that different editor have different conclusion, If you look at the "Secessionist and insurgent proto-states" table on proto-state page, it mention that Luhansk and Donetsk "de facto" achieved statehood, similar to other limited recognized states like transnistria, south ossetia, etc. It's also have a source Unfortunately i have no idea how to access the book and confirm it. Afif Brika1 (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

There have been many discussions about this exact point. I suggest you read the post 2014 archives if you want to know more about how the issue was handled on this page. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Actual control over territory

I believe we should split section of partially recognised states into two sections: those which control there territory (Kosovo, Taiwan, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Northern Cyprus), and those which do not (Palestine and Western Sahara). This is very important not to say crucial difference, and we have to indicate it. Also we do not need to separate UN observer state from other partially recognised states in independent section. --Gvinder (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Partly due to the SADR having control over a portion of the Western Sahara territory, and the complex situation of control/non-control that exists between Palestine and Israel (see West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord). Also, I mostly disagree due to the fact that if such a "limited recognition state" did not control its claimed territory then it would be excluded from this list anyway (similar to how we exclude Sovereign Military Order of Malta, rebel groups, or a Government in exile, which is what such a "state" would essentially be). - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I also disagree with Gvinder's comments per Wiz9999. Though a portion of the claimed territory of the SADR is in reality not under their control, another portion is under their control, and for that reason it is true to say that Western Sahara does in fact exist (de facto). Likewise, while it is true that the State of Palestine exists de jure, State of Palestine presence and control also exists. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Wa State & ISIL

Wa State

Wa State (Wa: Mēng Vax or Meung Va; Chinese: 佤邦; pinyin: Wǎ Bāng; Burmese: ဝပြည်နယ်) is an unrecognised state in Myanmar (Burma) that is currently subsumed under the official Wa Special Region 2 of northern Shan State.[3][4] The administrative capital is Pangkham (Chinese: 邦康; pinyin: Bāngkāng, formerly known as Panghsang, 邦桑) with a population of 558,000 it is unrecougnised by any nation, yet it has its own currency Renminbi and a calling code: +95 73 it should be added as it is alot like Somaliland — Preceding unsigned comment added by EIPERBOY (talk • contribs) 10:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously, and has consequently been excluded due to the lack of a clear declaration of independence that was made when it declared it's official "separation" from the Burmese government on 17 April 1989. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Wa State is a situation where the polity is operating defacto independent of any other state, but from the current information available it does not seem that Wa State considers itself to be dejure independent. To qualify for the list under the declarative theory, the polity in question must consider itself to be independent.XavierGreen (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This pops up too often on this talk page. It's probably time it was added to the Excluded entities section. Ladril (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that the state is in the same realm of legality as Puntland was (is?) in a few years ago. No source has ever been found that describes that it claims independence. There is a "Date of independence" indicated on the Wa State article infobox, but this seems to be completely unsourced. It is appropriately listed on the List of rebel groups that control territory as an entity that controls the land that they operate within, but this is still sans any form of actual 'independence' declaration.
In theory, this entity is covered by this excluded entity line: Rebel groups that have declared independence and exert some control over territory, but that reliable sources do not describe as meeting the threshold of a sovereign state under international law. Examples include Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (see List of rebel groups that control territory for a more complete list of such groups).
However, the "declared independence" part is problematic. On a side note, "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" will no longer be applicable to this line either, since (in a matter of hours from now it seems) they are about to lose the last speck of their territory in Syria. Maybe it is appropriate to add "Wa Sate" to the excluded entities in place of Islamic State here? But to me that wouldn't make sense, because its 'declaration' is far more tenuous than that of Donetsk and Luhansk. I would suggest, as Ladril seems to be indicating, that we make a new line for entities such as Wa State and Puntland. I propose that we remove IS, and at the same time we duplicate the entire aforementioned line, with a slight alteration to read: Rebel groups that have declared separation from another state and exert some control ... law. An example of this is Wa State (see List of rebel groups that control territory for a more complete list of such groups). As this will make it more clear what is being excluded from the article. Thoughts? - Wiz9999 (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Scratch that, I forgot we do already include it in the excluded entities list. Under the following line: Some subnational entities (such as the Wa State in Myanmar, Iraqi Kurdistan, or Rojava in Syria) function as de facto independent states, with the central government exercising little or no control over their territory. These entities, however, do not explicitly claim to be independent states and are therefore not included. See also proto-state. I will remove IS now though. - Wiz9999 (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Ladril, I see you actually just added that before my comments above, you sneaky devil you! ;)
I think the addition will work out just fine actually, it seems well worded and better targeted than my suggestion. - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The consensus here seems to be that Wa state, Galmudug and Puntland are proto-states, but they are not listed at Proto-state#Secessionist_and_insurgent_proto-states. This seems like something that's likely to cause conflict, and if we're going to list a bunch of proto-states, we should follow the same standard of sourcing as they do over there. Alternatively, we could list one unambiguous example (e.g. Iraqi Kurdistan) and direct the reader to that list, though that doesn't achieve the aim of explicitly excluding Wa State. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Including the reference to proto-states is probably a stretch, since as you mention they are not included in that other page. Perhaps it would be better to remove the reference to the proto-state page. This in order to avoid arguments with that page regarding what is and isn't allowed. Ladril (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, I am generally a bit hesitant about the lists on the proto-states article, much of the entries come from two sources, and many of the entries are really questionably "proto-states" (e.g. Sudetenland, which was more an occupation than an actual Proto-State). It also lacks many current entities like "Wa State" and "Glamudug". The concept itself is far more wishy-washy than "limited recognition" anyhow. I definitely see merits to the article, and it has its purpose and place. However, the lists present within it are not of the best quality. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

That page requires a lot of work before it can be used as a reference in other Wikipedia pages. Ladril (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

ISIL

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and therefore I would keep ISIL in for now. Besides, extremist factions that control territory in other countries (such as Gaza or Chechnya), have declared themselves to be provinces of it, so it's not clear even a wipeout in Syria would mean the disappearance of ISIL as an entity. Ladril (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC) As for the need for a new line, I would argue that the situation in some places (such as the Wa State) has become too stable over the years to be described as a simple "rebel group". In these places the status quo is leave them be as long as they don't claim secession, unlike ISIL and Donestsk which have been under military invasion since they were first declared. This is why people keep asking us to add Kurdistan or Wa State even when compared to them. Ladril (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it is a stretch to argue that the situation in Donetsk and Luhansk has not been largely militarily stable for the past 5 years, but that is a discussion for another time.
Anyway, with regards to ISIL, I did not remove them from the list of examples because they were going to be eliminated as an entity (you had decided to revert my edit under that pretext). I removed them, as I stated in my edit summary, because they are a BAD EXAMPLE for this exclusion line. After the Syrian territory is finally lost, they will arguably only exist as a hybrid of three forms; 1. as an international underground terrorist movement/insurrection, 2. through their affiliates (e.g. boko-haram), and 3. as a rebel group that controls territory completely outside of their heartland of Syria/Iraq (in Afghanistan, by 'sort-of-but-sort-of-not' affiliates known as Khorasan province). They actually hold territory nowhere else but Afghanistan, making them a horrible example of a rebel group that controls territory and has declared independence, as they only hold this territory through an associate and outside of their declared "state". Just to warn you, I will tolerate their presence in this exclusion list as an example for now, but once they have lost control of the 700mx700m area they still are clinging onto in Syria I will remove them from this line. Yes, they will still endure afterwards (that is not in dispute), but they will be a horrible example for exclusion, as they barely qualify as controlling anything. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

A lot has changed with respect to ISIL's influence since 2015, we need to consider that. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk may be exerting de facto sovereign control over part of the total area they claim. Still, I would not include them on the same line as Puntland or Iraqi Kurdistan, because the former claim to be independent while the latter do not. Just saying to avoid confusion in the future. Ladril (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding ISIL, I would request a wider consensus before deciding whether it should remain listed on this page or not. This consensus should, in my opinion, take into account whether external sources confirm the total disappearance of ISIL as an entity. My two cents. Ladril (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Is that really necessary for a simple example? I would understand if we were talking about an entry here on the main list, but for examples it really shouldn't matter too much to the article which specific examples are used. The thing that does matter though is the relevancy of the examples used to the concept they are exemplifying. If I recall correctly, the principal reason why ISIL was listed on this line as an example to exclude was because of the constant requests appearing on the talk page to add it as an "unrecognised state" in the table (a category it never really satisfied). I doubt we will be seeing many more of those requests, now that it has lost any significant territory that it used to control. It will be a far harder task to confirm its "total disappearance" as an entity as you say. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

As I said before, we are not crystal ball, so removing ISIL while it still exists is getting ahead of the facts. Regarding whether it should remain listed on the page or not, you have mentioned a very important practical reason: to warn users that it should not be added (since in the past people would keep adding it). Now, let's assume for a moment it's not wiped out straight away. I would argue that it is a different case than Donetsk and Luhansk, and therefore deserves its own bullet. This merits more detailed discussion, but I have started to give two reasons why it should not be removed. Ladril (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The Islamic State is a very specific phenomenon in terms of international law (proof of this is that it's most often discussed on its own, not compared with Kosovo, Donetsk, Western Sahara, etc.). Unlike the aforementioned cases, it's not looking to be recognized as a state by the international community, and since it pursues world domination, it does not recognize the legitimacy of any other state but itself. Therefore its claim to statehood is fundamentally different from that of other rebel entities and should be treated differently. There are other very specific reasons why its claim to statehood is not as valid as that of the entries on this list (see this article: [17]. Therefore, if it were to remain on the excluded entries section (which I argue it should), it should be its own bullet like the Order of Malta is. Ladril (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

ISIL has been defined as a proto-state and a very specific case in third-party sources (see my additions to the article). In order to avoid cluttering the page, I've only edited one of the excluded entities bullets to clarify its status. I anticipate that world events may lead other editors to remove any mention of ISIL from this page quite soon. However, for the immediate future I would like it to remain this way. Ladril (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your earlier edit because this bullet is relating to rebel groups, not "proto-states" it is best not to dilute it with this additional concept as well. The line appropriately directs the user to the list of active rebel groups at the end of the sentence for more examples and does not do so for the proto-state article after the edit you performed. I have mentioned previously how I view "proto-state" as a wishy-washy concept to begin with. Many things could potentially fall under this category, Catalonia, Guernsey, Somaliland, Kosovo, Puntland, Conch Republic, Gilgat Baltistan, Armenia, North Cyprus, Hong Kong, South Sudan, etc. It is simply better to not mention it at all if I'm honest, but if you feel it must be added into the exceptions list then I won't stop you. I would just ask that you please leave the rebel groups exclusion line without this added complexity and make a new bullet for it instead. It is hard enough convincing editors the line between a rebel group, like the West Papuans, and a clearly designated state lacking any recognition (e.g. Somaliland) without this important bullet in place, and clearly stated/defined.
With regards to the references you added, if the intention was to show anything regarding ISIL specifically, I will point out they are all woefully out of date with regards to ISIL's significant loss in territory (2017 at the latest, ISIL still held a large territory back then). However, if the intention of these sources was to explain a "proto-state" and what it's significance is. Then I suggest that you add it as a part of the new "proto-state" bullet that I mentioned a moment ago. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The entire proto-state article itself is tripe and is based off of conflicting sources. Some political scientists use the term "putative" to describe polities that consider themselves to be a state, but to a neutral observer are dubiously so. At the end of the day in terms self declared "independent states" which arn't included in this list, there are really three categories of these polities for our purposes: 1. entities which control no territory whatsoever (Micronations, Republic of Catalonia), 2. Entities which ephemerally control territory or whose control of remote minor villages, ect is not well sourced (Republic of Ambazonia, Republic of West Papua), and finally entities which undisputedly control territory (Republic of Donetsk). The first category do not meet the declarative theory by any measure, the second and third categories may in theory meet the declarative theory but we don't include them in this list because we lack sources which say they meet the declarative theory. The whole purpose of adding the bit about Donetsk, Luhansk, and ISIL was to reduce edit warring by explaining to readers why particular entities which reliable sources state control territory and claim independence are not in the list, when an objective reader might think that they should be. Any polity which reliable sources no longer state as controlling territory (or claiming independence) should thus be removed as an example of such a polity.XavierGreen (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The proto-state concept is in use by quite a few political scientists and scholars of international law, so it should be referenced on Wikipedia (I'm arguing for the merits of the concepts, not those of the referencing page). Time should be given to that page to see if it improves. Ladril (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed Ladril, the proto-state concept is a real thing, but the article is really still in it's infancy. Much of it needs improvement and I question the need for the lists contained within it, since the concept is very broad and could theoretically include many more entries than just what has been listed. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

On a side note, I had previously looked into Republic of Ambazonia for a bit and, from what I have read, they had partly held onto the territory that they desired for an independent state (mainly the largest city & surrounding area) for a while at least. However, all this territory has subsequently been surrendered back to the government, largely without much fighting. The rebels vacated all the villages that they once controlled, one by one, and these were seized back by the government army (once it had eventually shown up in full force). At the current moment Ambazonia's armed wing has resorted to true guerrilla warfare. They are hiding out in a national forest within Cameroon and are conducting raids into the rest of Cameroon from this location, as well as from across the border in Nigeria. But, somewhat problematically, the sources about Ambazonia do not mention about their actual retreat from these specific areas. Instead, the sources that I could find on the matter have just stuck to announcing the re-imposition of government control on one village then another, then another, etc. Consequently, this makes it more difficult to source their retreat and actual loss of territory. Just an aside/FYI. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wiz9999: Do you happen to know of sources that mention separatists holding territory at the beginning of the war? I've been working on the Anglophone Crisis article for a while, and all I know of is that they held a few villages in Manyu until December 2017 (the Cameroonian government claimed that they held the division capital Mamfe, but the separatists denied this). If you have sources that mention territorial control beyond this, I would love to add them to the main article. (By the way, the separatists definitely do control land, but not in the sense that there are clearly defined frontlines. They move around, which is the nature of guerilla warfare, but they do control a fair bit of countryside - at least according to a journalist who went to an ADF camp in the early summer of 2018.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

From what I have read, they do not control a single village as of winter 2018. It's all in government hands and they are sticking with true guerrilla tactics now (at least the armed wing is). Yes, I saw a source stating that they held territory at the beginning of the conflict (the main city Bamenda). But it was a long time ago now, I don't recall where it was located. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wiz9999: I've never heard of that. If you ever remember where you read that the separatists ever controlled Bamenda, do please let me know. Cheers! Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• ISIL has now lost all of it territory in Syria; [18]. It only controls some villages in Afganistan now. I still believe it is a bad example for the excluded entities list under rebel groups, since it is akin to Al-Qaeda now, in that it is a global Islamic fundamentalist group that only holds minor territory in countries not related to it's principal claim/desired land. - Wiz9999 (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe there is widespread Wikipedia consensus that ISIL has stopped existing as a territorial entity. For this reason, I personally have no objection against removal from this page. Its inclusion before was warranted for practical reasons, but the point is moot now, in my opinion. Ladril (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I Agree. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh)

I happen to agree that Nagorno-Karabakh is probably a more well known name than Artsakh (to the extent either are known at all), however that is a consideration for the main Republic of Artsakh article, and we should follow that article here. I don't think it helps the reader to have one of these often quite obscure states singled out to have an alternative name at multiple points (aside from its main entry where I left the mention of the alternative name), especially one which is linked to an article about an area that is partially coterminous but not at all exactly the same. I don't think it is clear to a reader unfamiliar with the Nagorno-Karabakh situation that the bracketed word is an alternative name. The single inclusion also I think raises questions as to why names like Tran-sdniestria are also not included in brackets. CMD (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This is because the WP:COMMONNAME of Nagorno-Karabakh was fairly recently renamed to Artsakh. Thus the former common-name is still listed all over the article, as Artsakh may not be a name familiar to readers. This is reflected in the Republic of Artsakh article with the leed of that article listing both these relevant names. The bracketed form of the word is in line with WP:MOS#Brackets and parentheses, thus it should not really be that confusing for the reader (that it is in reference to the previous word), but if you are so worried about this you can add "(also known as Nagorno-Karabakh)" instead of just "(Nagorno-Karabakh)". The situation of Transnisteria is different. The WP:COMMONNAME of this state has always been Transnisteria, with the WP:OFFICIAL name having been recently revealed to be "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic". Thus, the official name changed in the Transnistria article, but the term "Pridnestrove" never really caught on as a WP:COMMONNAME. Thus, we have the current situation where the official and common names are different. This happens to be true of most of the the states listed in this article actually. I see you have recently gone round the article changing the names of states to their common-names, which is preferable, as we really should be using these to comply better with WP:COMMONAME. However, I still think that official names should be use for the principal entry as we are dealing with a legal status when we address "States with limited recognition", thus it makes sense to refer to these entities by their legally acceptable terms. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Common names aren't renamed, that's not how common names work. I included a parenthetical noting a former name, the difference is that you have added the name unadorned besides Artsakh at multiple mentions throughout the page. WP:MOS#Brackets and parentheses supports an alternative mention, it does not support peppering every entry in the same article with the same clarifying text each time. Regarding Transnistria, I didn't mention "Pridnestrove", nor have I seen it used like that before. I am also unsure why you mention the official name of Transnistria was "recently revealed", I believe it has had that official name for its entire existence? As for WP:COMMONNAME, this applies to article titles, but the spirit behind it is surely better reflected by not putting an additional name at every mention? The official names are used in all entries at the moment, is there a particular entry you are unsure of? (They are also definitely not legally acceptable in many cases, hence their inclusion on this page.) I am unsure how much of this relates to the issue, which is the repetition of an identical clarifying statement throughout the same page, and only for one state. CMD (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been seeing almost exclusively "Artsakh" used in coverage of the polity in the Karabakh region ever since the rename. I've rarely seen "Nagorno-Karabakh" ever since. While Transnistria is certainly the COMMONNAME of the PMR, Artsakh appeared to catch on and emerge as the new COMMONNAME for that state. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 16:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Brendon the Wizard, that is interesting. Where do you see it discussed? CMD (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Due to states with limited recognition being infamously hard to get information from, and how Western media seldom cover the Caucasus, I have to manually search for news about the countries. I will immediately concede that all of these outlets covering Artsakh are Armenian outlets, but that's not surprising considering that Artsakh/Karabakh is culturally Armenian and no other country approaches Artsakh as a legitimate polity. The following articles were published about Artsakh in the last one week: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17). When I search "Nagorno-Karabakh" in news, I get far fewer results, but about 2/3 of said results say the "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" and still refer to the polity as the "Republic of Artsakh." Perhaps Artsakh easily became a WP:COMMONNAME because it's much shorter, doesn't refer to a geographic region, and has historic connotations? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, if the only sources that use it are Armenian ones, it's probably not the common name. Nonetheless, it's the name of the article, and I see little value to including the alternative name at every mention here when even on the article's topic they are usually kept to one or two mentions. CMD (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Gaza

change ((Gaza)) to ((Gaza Strip|Gaza))

 Done. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Somaliland

For the past few years there is an edit war going on on Somali language, where some editors claim that the language is spoken in Somaliland, and others revert this, presumably based on the fact that Somaliland is not a recognized state. There is not much discussion going on, just constant reverts. Is there any Wikipedia policy that could be applied to settle that conflict? Landroving Linguist (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Serbia's recognition of China and Taiwan

Source: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-countries-recognize-taiwan-as-a-country.html

According to the above article, Serbia is one of the ten countries that neither recognises China nor Taiwan. Is it true? If so, what are the other nine countries? 2001:8003:9003:1801:39DE:3BB:C372:7A5C (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Serbia has diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China.Ladril (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

NATO bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, resulting in deaths. How does it not have relations with China? Please remember and study history meticulously. Your source is spurious and not up-to-date since even fewer countries recognize the RoC now. --94.134.89.154 (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir

Azad Kashmir should be included, because, it claims sovereignty and is recognised as a state by Pakistan (UN member state) Britannika writes that "Azad Kashmir is regarded by Pakistan as independent". Proof that Azad Kashmir claims its sovereignty: [19] --Servansky (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

We need either:

• Evidence of diplomatic recognition by a UN member state, or:
• Evidence that external sources (i.e. academics, lawyers or diplomats) have assessed this particular case against the declarative theory of statehood and determined that a state exists according to that theory.

The evidence that you have provided does not demonstrate either of these points. Kahastok talk 18:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Kahastok, Britannika clearly writes about diplomatic recognition of Azad Kashmir by Pakistan. In Islamabad there is embassy of Azad Kashmir. And Pakistan is for sure a UN member state. What else we need? --Servansky (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The Britannica source does not mention diplomatic recognition at all. And the source you cite as a claim of sovereignty doesn't actually appear to include any claim of sovereignty. So neither source is good enough to meet our standard. Kahastok talk 22:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain me what is the difference between diplomatic recognition and regarding as independent? Maybe I misunderstand something. --Servansky (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Kahastok, I found also this paper, where author claims: "Partially recognized states (entities with limited recognition). These entities are not UN members and they are not recognized by the majority of UN member states. But they have made serious claims for international legitimacy and have attained many attributes of sovereignty. The entities of this third type are recognized by a varying number of UN member states, ranging from dozens (e.g., the Sahara Arab Democratic Republic, Kosovo, 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)." --Servansky (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Kahastok --Servansky (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

A single reference in an article on a different subject hardly seems authoritative. If this is as clear-cut as you suggest, it should be reasonably easy to find references. To the Pakistan government perhaps, or an expert in the Kashmir dispute? Kahastok talk 19:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

error regarding Israel

I assume whoever added this, did not read past the headline: [20] It cleary states: "The decision must be approved by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the PLO Executive Council." This decision has not been approved and most likely will not, therefore the Palestinian recognition is NOT suspended. Please fix this.

BenjaminKay (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

FixedSelfstudier (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics

I suggest both the DPR and LNR be added to this list. Both of them would fall into the category of States recognized only by other non UN-States. They are recognized by both each other and South Ossetia. Both the LPR and DPR have a: defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter relations with other states. Additionally both the DPR and the LNR have worked with Russia in the past. Legal documents made by the governments of the DPR and LNR are officially recognized by Russia as well. Both of these areas are an interesting topic and a good addition to this list. Thank you for hearing me out. Flalf (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

As you can imagine, this point has been brought up several times in the past. Do you have any evidence either that the some reliable source (which means, in this instance, a diplomatic, academic or legal authority) believes that the standard of the declarative theory is met? Or alternatively, could you provide some evidence of formal diplomatic recognition by a UN member state? Kahastok talk 12:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Then why is Somaliland on this list? It is not recognized by an UN member state and it does not reach the standard of declarative theory. Flalf (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

We have, cited in the article, evidence from reliable sources that Somaliland is "generally regarded" as meeting the criteria of the Montevideo Convention, i.e. the standard of declarative theory. Nobody has ever provided similar evidence for Donetsk or Luhansk. Kahastok talk 18:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I have seen the source and it does seem reliable, but the source does not provide any reasoning or evidence behind it's claim that I am aware of. How could a state that is recognized by no other states meet the standard of declarative theory? From my point of view there appears to be no logic behind this. Flalf (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The central tenet of the declarative theory is that statehood is a matter of fact and that it is independent of international recognition. On pages like this, I have seen some people argue that it is impossible to meet the Montevideo Convention's fourth criterion (capacity to enter into relations with other states) without explicit diplomatic recognition - and others that just about anything is enough to satisfy it.

We're Wikipedia editors. We're assumed not to be international lawyers or academics studying this point - which is why Wikipedia bans original research. We have to rely on what the sources tell us on this point. Kahastok talk 19:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I mean if the fourth criteria is unreachable than the argument collapses. Putting all that past, thanks for debating with me, it's not often that I get a healthy debate like this that I would never be able to do in person. Thanks! :) Flalf (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Cook Islands & Niue

Both Countries are Unrecognised as well. Can it please be added? Xhundredone (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Should Ambazonia be on this list?

if not which criteria does Ambazonia need to meet in order to be on this list? 2A00:23C7:7F08:3E00:94F2:17BA:5932:7801 (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't meet declarative theory and has no foreign relations. Flalf (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

comments of Bruno Coppieters

Dear colleagues, I received the comments of Bruno Coppieters about the content of this article. Below they are:

There is indeed a logical inconsistency in the article if its title is “List of states with limited recognition” and if it then also deals with the question if entities that are not recognized by any state as states have to be considered or not as being states according to the declarative theory of statehood. To state in the section "Criteria for Inclusion" that entities which are exclusively satisfying the declarative theory of statehood but are not recognized by any other state have to be included in a list of states with limited recognition does not make sense.

I would keep the title, and adapt the article to it. Having such a title makes sense to indicate that limited recognition is a very important aspect to be taken into account in any analysis of the situation, even for those authors who defend the declarative theory of statehood. This is true for international lawyers and for political scientists.

There is a lot of confusion in the present article. It starts with a discussion of international law but then refers further in the article to political science concepts such as 'de facto state' or 'proto-state'. Different disciplines have different purposes, and this distinction is not clarified in the article. International law refers to legal rights and duties associated with statehood, and this question should not be confused with the aims of a political science analysis when it focuses on a correct description or explanation.

I also find the analysis of different types of UN membership confusing and in contradiction with the title. This should be a separate article, indicating how such status is achieved and its significance, both in legal analysis and for political science.

It is however correct to exclude from the list of states with limited recognition those entities which are not recognized by any UN member but only by other non fully recognized entities. This is the case for Transnistria or the self-declared independent republics in Eastern Ukraine. Including this special form of recognition would stretch the analysis too far, making the title of the article meaningless.

The question if the self-declared independent republics in Eastern Ukraine may be considered of being states in line with the Montevideo criteria is a different one than the one of limited recognition, not to be addressed in the article. International lawyers defending the declarative theory would not necessarily agree on the application of these criteria in this context. And political scientists defending the concept of a “de facto state” would also disagree among each other, I suppose. I do not defend this concept of 'de facto state', as I personally think that recognition is also constitutive of statehood. Contested state is in my view a better term in political science, as it puts contestation of statehood (by states, by scholars) at the center of the analysis.

All the best Bruno --Kroll6 (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

All very erudite, and...? I confess to confusion, what is is it that you actually want to do? Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, exclude the entities which are exclusively satisfying the declarative theory of statehood but are not recognized by any other state. I. e. Artsakh, Transnistria, and Somaliland. If we have a title “List of states with limited recognition” it makes sense to indicate that limited recognition is a very important aspect to be taken into account. --Kroll6 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line? What if such a state was recognized by one other state? Would that be sufficient to qualify as "limited"?Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

List Venezuela here or not?

Mnn because, iirc in the last year, after dissolution of US-VE diplomatic relations by Maduro, the Secretary Mike Pompeo said that US government doesn't recognize the Maduro government, and the United States will continue their diplomatic relations with Guaido government? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn Per Montenegro section of archive. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Wa State

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wa_State It has a leader, an armed forces, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judeobasquelanguage (talk • contribs) 11:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Claims sovereignty: Green tick Lacks recognition from at least one UN member state: Green tick Declarative theory of statehood: Defined territory: Green tick Permanent population: Green tick Government: Green tick Capacity for relations: Green tick Own currency : Green tick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judeobasquelanguage (talk • contribs) 11:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Wa State does not consider itself to be independent, it therefore fails the inclusion criteria. Also no reliable sources indicate that Wa State ever actually declared independence. The only rebel controlled territory in Burma/Myanmar that declared independence was Khun Sa's Shan State in 1991, which was subsequently conquered by Wa State forces and the Myanmar military. Portions of Khun Sa's forces reorganized as Shan State Army - South which may control some small portions of territory, however i have seen no source which states that Shan State Army South maintains Khun Sa's claim to independence or whether or not it even considers itself a successor in interest to Khun Sa's state.XavierGreen (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

(??) Estonia also does not recognize the DPRK (??)

In the table of "UN member states not recognised by at least one UN member state", it is written that "[the DPRK] is not recognised by three UN members: France, Japan, South Korea;", however, in the France-South Korea relations wikipage it is claimed that another UN member state does not recognize the DPRK.

The France-South Korea wikipage reads that "[France] is one of two member states of the European Union to consider South Korea as the only sole legitimate government of the Korean Peninsula (the other being Estonia)." I cannot independently verify this claim, and no sources are cited for that particular sentence, but I suppose it should be looked into whether it would be appropriate to add Estonia to the list of UN member states that recognize the DPRK in the table.

France-South Korea wikipage URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%E2%80%93South_Korea_relations

DieSonneUnsLach (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Liberland?

Seems like Liberland should be on this list, but I thought I'd ask here since I'm not completely sure about one of the criteria.

• Claims sovereignty: Y
• Lacks recognition from at least one UN member state: Y
• Declarative theory of statehood:
  • Defined territory: Y
  • Permanent population: ? (Says 1,000 on the infobox, but I'm not sure whether it counts as a permanent population.)
  • Government: Y
  • Capacity for relations: Y

flarn2006 [u t c] time: 20:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

In general, the requirement is that reliable sources think it meets the criteria, not that random Wikipedians do.

In this case, Liberland is a micronation, one of thousands around the world. Micronations are generally understood to be a different concept to states with limited recognition and are explicitly excluded from this list (in the list of excluded entities at the bottom). Kahastok talk 21:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the issue that this page requires reliable sources to conclude that the criteria are met, the "defined territory" part is usually meant to imply that the proclaimed government as some credible claim to actually controlling said territory. My understanding is that in the case of Liberland, the supposed government is generally not even able to access its claimed territory. Also note that the Liberland article now estimates the population at zero. GeoEvan (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Stylistic consistency on "Excluded Entities" list

The "Excluded Entities" section can't seem to decide whether it's a list of types of entities, or just a bunch of bullet points describing situations that lead to excluded entities. It seems to me that each bullet should start by naming a type of entity. Otherwise it reads as very sloppy and unencyclopedic. I tried to fix this for the last and most stylistically inconsistent bullet point, but was reverted. Perhaps User:Wiz9999 could comment here actually addressing the issue I was trying to fix rather than just reverting my edit for allegedly being redundant? GeoEvan (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The statement you added to the exclusion criteria (States that lack explicit recognition from certain other states despite the absence of any dispute over their legitimacy.) was a very generalized, vague, wishy-washy statement that adds no benefit to the already stated exclusion criteria bullet you added it to (Some states can be slow to establish relations with new UN member states and thus do not explicitly recognise them, despite having no dispute and sometimes favorable relations.). The current statement is clear, specific, and concise. The proposed addition is simply re-stating the same approximate thing, but in a less clear way. It is not necessary to add additional statements that will just bloat the criteria with padding for no reason. - Wiz9999 (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Nice video about the topic from the specialist

Video on YouTube --Zotur (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've subed to his channel now. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Summary table

I added a summary table with the territories that are not members of the united nations

Territory	Area (km²)	Population	Official languages
Somaliland	176,120	3,508,180 (2017)	Somali
Artsakh	11,458	150,932 (2015)	Armenian
Transnistria	4,163	469,000 (2018)	Russian, Moldovan and Ukrainian
North Cyprus	3,355	326,000 (2017)	Turkish
South Ossetia	3,900	53,532 (2015)	Ossetian and Russian
Abkhazia	8,660	245,246 (2018)	Abkhazian and Russian
Republic of China	36,197	23,780,452 (2018)	Mandarin Chinese
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic	266,000	502,585 (2010)	Arabic and Spanish.
Kosovo	10,887	1,810,463 (2020)	Albanian and Serbian
Palestine	6,020	5,051,953 (2020)	Arabic

--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this added table? Sorry, but I just do not see the value in the three arbitrary properties you listed verses the subject matter of this article. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This is one of those things that causes trouble in the long run because it's not really the point of this list. It should not be included IMO. Kahastok talk 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Catalonia

What is the exact reason Catalonia is not featured? I know there's a reason and it's been removed when someone added it, but I think the Excluded Entities section could mention Catalonia in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryota Mitarai (talk • contribs) 13:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Does the entity of Catalonia control any of its territory in any meaningful way? Or could it all be considered to be controlled by Spain. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason why it would be included. It patently doesn't meet the criteria, and the circumstances of October 2017 are unique enough that I can't see how they serve as a useful example of an entity that doesn't belong. Kahastok talk 17:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Somaliland has got recognition by Taiwan?

cf. their MOFA: [21] and [22], what should we do by both sources? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

From my understanding both Taiwan and Somaliland have used very careful language to specifically avoid de jure recognition of each other in these new agreements with one another. The language within has taken both states right to the cliff edge of formally recognizing each other, but without any actual formal recognition occurring, meaning the status quo remains unchanged in actuality. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2020

Change original text:

[States that are neither UN members nor UN observers : Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic : “Morocco invaded and annexed most of Western Sahara after Spanish withdrawal from the territory in 1975.”]

to:

["Morocco invaded and annexed most of Western Sahara, forcing Spain to withdraw from the territory in 1975."]

(Source: Mundy, Jacob (January 2006). "How the US and Morocco seized the Spanish Sahara". mondediplo.com) 142.182.123.127 (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done, but added a different citation for this, as the stated source did not give details beyond the title. - Wiz9999 (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Countries that don't recognise North Korea

I'm pretty sure that there are more than three countries that don't recognise North Korea. For example, the United States doesn't officially recognise North Korea, despite the fact that it has engaged in some relations with it. Another article on Wikipedia claims that Israel doesn't recognise North Korea. There are probably numerous other examples. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Added the US, no formal bilateral relations. Flalf^Talk 01:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

No diplomatic relations does not equal no recognition. Flalf^Talk 13:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Not true. Turkey and Armenia does not have any single relations right now, does not mean they withdraw the recognition of Armenia. You can recognise a country without having an embassy there. Beshogur (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria - Academic sources

The ‘inclusion criteria’ requires that for a polity to be included in this article it must satisfy either the declarative or constitutive theory of statehood. The declarative theory requires a defined territory, a permanent population, a government and a capacity to enter legal relations with other states. The constitutive theory requires that the polity be recognised as being part of the international community by states already in the international community, the most obvious expression of this is membership in the United Nations.

The inclusion of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (Transnistria), the Republic of Artsakh and the Republic of Somaliland is justified on the grounds that all three states satisfy the declarative theory of statehood. Furthermore, all three states have clearly sourced academic and journalistic references, it is not the policy of the article editors to include states as a matter of editor discretion, but rather to use existing sources to support the inclusion. I would suggest diversifying and expanding the existing sources as a single academic source is used for the inclusion of these polities.

The exclusion of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (Luhansk) has been particularly controversial. That is looking at the article discussion history there is much to be found on debates concerning their inclusion or exclusion. The main arguments against the inclusion have been lack of academic sources, immaturity and the fact that the international community (including Russia) universally recognises these polities as belonging to the Ukrainian state.

The other argument is that the inclusion of these polities opens the floodgates to the inclusion of any territory under the control of a rebel group, which is particularly complicated by the fact they change hands so regularly and there are so many of them in some parts of the world. This would make the article overcomplicated and prone to error and constant change that would render it ineffective.

I know of at least one academic source that compares Transnistria to the DPR and emphasises the shared features of both as being ‘lack of international recognition’ this is from an article published this year: Ion Marandici & Alexandru Leșanu (2020) The Political Economy of the Post-Soviet De Facto States: A Paired Comparison of Transnistria and the Donetsk People’s Republic, Problems of Post-Communism.

If we are accepting a single academic source as a reason for inclusion at the very least we must now reject Transnistria from this list because I have provided a more recent example of a single academic source claiming that the DPR and Transnistria are equivalent in recognition. If the list does not include the DPR it should not include Transnistria. Many of you will find this argument unsatisfactory and say that there is more to it than that, you are probably correct but this is an argument for the inclusion of more academic sources showing the differences, the point is that a single source is inadequate.

As for whether the DPR and Luhansk do satisfy either criteria, they clearly do not meet the constitutive theory, but the declarative theory is trickier. I have been unable to find any clear sources that say that either of these two polities do meet the declarative theory, but in theory I cannot see why they do not.

One thing I have found is that many discussions of de facto states do include discussions of these two polities (DPR and Luhansk) alongside the others included in the article. For example, an article in the International Studies Quarterly Jun2017, Vol. 61 Issue 2, p337-351. 15p. 3 by Adrian Florea, the DPR is mentioned alongside Abkhazia. This suggests it is not a stretch for them to be included in the currently existing list.

Given the lack of credible academic sources saying that the DPR and Luhansk meet the declarative theory it is perhaps immature for them to be included currently. But I think there ought to be a serious consideration as to whether the inclusion of the other entities is somewhat arbitrary, or at the very least not sourced enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llihcurhc (talk • contribs) 00:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the declarative theory of statehood and the “D/LNR” in Ukraine, as codified in the Montevideo Convention:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. . . .

The contracting states definitely establish the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or advantages that have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure

a) Is there a permanent population of the D/LNR? There was a lot of news last year about the RF giving residents Russian passports (150,000 of them, according to Marandici & Alexandru 2020). b) What is the defined territory? In 2014–15 it was “New Russia,” and leader Zakharchenko was talking about driving tanks all the way to Kyiv. Do the D/LNR constitutions define their territories? I doubt it is defined by the Minsk ceasefire line, or the similar but not identical current line of contact. c) Do the D/LNR possess their own government? There’s plenty in reliable sources about their being established and run by Russian citizens, including in high posts (formerly Borodai and others, now Pashkov), and direction from members of the RF government (Surkov, now replaced by Kozak, I think, and also Aksyonov from Crimea), as well as allegations of its armed forces being commanded by soldiers who report to Moscow. d) How is capacity for foreign relations defined? Currently, their relations with Ukraine, including negotiating the Minsk agreements and prisoner exchanges, are passed through the Russian government and moderated by France and Germany in the Normandy Format. It has no economic relations except through its patron-state, the RF (according to M&A 2020).

And regarding “coercive measures”: Reliable sources tell us that the de facto Donetsk and Luhansk territories are the result of military action (involving thousands or tens of thousands of Russian volunteers, mercenaries, and soldiers) culminating in the Battle of Debaltseve. So why would Wikipedia recognize this as declarative statehood when, according to the conventions of international law, no law-abiding state would? (And are we jumping the gun by considering this recognition, when no law-abiding state does? )

The subject of Marandici & Alexandru 2020 is economic endurance, not statehood, declarative or otherwise. It has a note (1) about the phrase “de facto states,” referring to Blakkisrud & Kolstø 2012, which in turn states:

1. There is no universal agreement on terminology concerning what to call these entities – different authors have at various stages identified them as ‘unrecognized states’ (King 2001), ‘pseudo-states’ (Kolossov and O’Loughlin 1999), ‘quasi-states’ (Kolstø 2006) and ‘contested states’ (Geldenhuys 2009). Whereas several of these terms have some merit in the sense that they indicate essential characteristics of these entities, there seems to be an emerging consensus on the term ‘de facto’ states, and we will therefore use this appellation. The distinction between de facto states and regular ‘restive regions’ is that the former have officially declared independence from their parent state and have been able to maintain such de facto independence for some time (Kolstø 2006 argues for a minimum of two years).

That is, this is a way to refer to these entities that have certain shared characteristics (which are not all of a, b, c, and d, above), and not an evaluation of their statehood.

But since we’re discussing this paper: in contrasting the DNR to Transnistria, it says its “survival depends exclusively on Russia’s material support,” and “the patron-state thus is not a remote actor, but actively shapes the governance structure of these regions.” It describes ways in which the DNR is partly foreign-controlled and rent-dependent, e.g., the “patron-state sets the level of public-sector wages” through the “Kremlin’s kurator for Donbas,” etcetera. It mentions that the DNR’s aim is not independence: “both regions continue to call on the patron-state to formally incorporate them.” All of these can help us evaluate the possibility of declarative statehood (but they are no substitute for a reference that states it).

Florea 2017 merely mentions the D/LNR, without studying or evaluating them, and uses the term “de facto state” to refer to all of the entities in the category it discusses, including the ones that failed or were reintegrated into their parent states. It is also not an evaluation of statehood.

Whether the D/LNR belong in this list should be justified independently of whether, for example, Transnistria belongs here, and vice versa. Likewise, it should be actually justified: it’s insufficient to say they are mentioned together somewhere so that means they have the same statehood status.

And finally, the concrete manifestation of declarative statehood is in international law, which leads to recognition by other law-abiding states. So Wikipedia can safely remain a follower and consider states to be recognized states, since recognition will often and typically follow declaration. In fact, do we know that declarative statehood can be known to exist until after it has been legally internationally recognized? Like the guilty, mustn’t we presume states innocent of statehood until it is determined de jure? Let’s not jump the gun by Wikipedia recognizing statehood before any other state, or even before any other reliable source.

In summary, I agree. —Michael Z. 20:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Remove Artsakh from the list

James Ker-Lindsay, who is already used in this article as a reliable source, said that "the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic no longer exists as a de-facto state". Should we remove Artsakh from this list? --Surfsvizor (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Final details of the agreement are still being worked out, it would be unwise to remove it completely until all details are finalized. Besides, the Republic of Artsakh and it's capital Stepanakert will still exist; albeit a much smaller state. What's left of Artsakh will not be under Azeri control and while it has shrunk significantly in size, it is still acting as a de-facto state with the capital city under its control. Archives908 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it is notable that he said that it "no-longer exists", but I don't think it warrants any change just yet. The chances now of any other state recognising it are next to nothing (including Armenia, which never even recognised it when it was a more fully fledged de-facto state. It seemingly will still exist in some manner or another, although with much reduced power and influence. The most significant change that impacts this article since the conclusion of the war has been the reduction in territory, which means we will need to change our map (and other such wikipedia maps) to what the new borders will eventually be settled on, but it is too soon to be clear what those borders will be in practical terms (thinking of the Lachin corridor here). - Wiz9999 (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. I think we need to keep tabs on it and I think we need to be open to new evidence. But it's not clear at the moment that the NKR government has been dissolved, nor that reliable source opinion will conclude that it no longer exists as a de facto state when the dust settles. Kahastok talk 10:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Archives908, Kahastok, and Wiz9999: you are not consistent. You are not including Donetsk and Luhansk in this list, because there is no source directly claiming that they meet the Montevideo criteria. The only provided source which directly confirms that Nagorno-Karabakh Republic meets Montevideo criteria is the book by James Ker-Lindsay Ker-Lindsay, James (2012). The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States. Oxford University Press. p. 53. ISBN 9780199698394. ...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.. But now he said that the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic no longer meet the Montevideo criteria (if the video above is not enough, he told me that now the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic does not meet the Montevideo criteria, I can ask him to speak about this in the next video more explicitly). But of course NKR government has not been dissolved, but what does this have to do with meeting the Montevideo criteria? --Surfsvizor (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying about ignoring sourced information about a particular entry from the same author who is being relyed on to argue for the inclusion of said entry. However, I think we can all agree that a youtube video and a response to a comment does not hold up the same merrit as a fully published and detailed book specifically about the subject. About me being inconsistent in excluding Donetsk and Luhansk from this list, I think you will find if you look through the archive history that I have generally been supportive of their inclusion on this list and overall the sourced information that has been dug up thus far has not met the satisfaction of the other editors as being reliable enough. As far as I am aware, that still has not changed, meaning Donestk and Luhansk are excluded. Understand that the current arrangements on this article are due to an overall truce on the situation (based on a series of lengthy previous discussions) and not necessarily supported by every contirbtor here before you go making wild accusations. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

This keeps popping up in every single armenia-azerbaijan related article and as you can see on the talk page itself as of right now still exists and removing it would be premature as the agreements are still being finalized. Flalf^Talk 15:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia ought to be conservative about these things. It is far better to rely on proper published reliable sources than on a brief line in a Youtube video. Let's let things calm down. Let's wait until the position is settled, and see what those reliable sources written after the war say. There is no rush. Kahastok talk 22:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.ejiltalk.org/at-daggers-drawn-international-legal-issues-surrounding-the-conflict-in-and-around-nagorno-karabakh/ has some material on the matter but not sure if legal blogs count as determinative rs.Selfstudier (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Surfsvizor, do you have any updated information from James Ker-Lindsay about Artsakh having already lost its status as a de facto state? I like watching his YouTube videos, but I don't agree with his statement "Artsakh is no longer a de facto state". In my opinion, Artsakh has lost a lot of its territory in this war, but Azerbaijan has not completely taken over the daily administration of the whole Nagorno-Karabakh region. Most importantly, its capital city has not been taken by the Azerbaijani forces. So Artsakh still exists and it will continue to function as a de facto state until further political agreements are reached between them and Azerbaijan in the future. Most likely it would be fully intergraded into Azerbaijan as an autonomous region, but the breakaway area might gain independence through a referendum as a political compromise. As of today though, I think it is still a de facto state. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Mongolia

Mongolia is recognized by all UN member states as far as I know, yet it is not recognized by Taiwan, itself a state with limited recognition. Should Mongolia be added to this list, and if so, where? 174.63.36.181 (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The criteria states it must lack recognition from at least 1 UN member state, which it does not, so it won't be included. Flalf^Talk 18:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Israel and Bhutan/Morocco

According to the "International Recognition of Israel" article, which is linked in this article, Israel is now not recognized only by 28 UN members. This is likely due to the normalization with Bhutan and Morocco. Unless it's unconfirmed, the article should probably be updated to say that Israel is not recognized only by 28 members.

I'd edit it myself, but I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing and so not do not know what/how to do yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryota Mitarai (talk • contribs) 12:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Donetsk, Luhansk should be included now

By this time, the situation in Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics is no longer any different from that in Abkhazia, Transnistria and South Osetia, namely:

• The states control territory and people.
• The states have declared independence.
• The states do not seek to conquer entire Ukraine, so it is not a civil war.
• The states are recognized by some other states of limited recognition.
• This territory does not change over the time (the conflict is frozen since ~2015, so, 5 years, and the ceasefire is generally respected with no more boundary changes).
• Like in the cases of Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Osetia, the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics are claimed by the country that formerly ruled their areas (in this case Ukraine). In all five cases that country sees the particular countries as being not really independent but rather "puppets of Russia" or "Russian-occupied territories". That said, such arguement does not make either Abkhazia, South Osetia, or Transnistria unlisted in this article, so Donetsk and Luhansk should also be listed in this article.

Ruĝa nazuo (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — Ruĝa nazuo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For the two entities to be added to this article, we would need reliable sources to clearly state all of the above, and preferably to directly link these to theories of statehood. CMD (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The above is insufficient. What we need is reliable sources that analyse these situations in terms of the theories of statehood and that conclude that states exist. Kahastok talk 07:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, the points above are already proven by links that exist in Wikipedia, including here (e.g. South Osettian recognition) and the articles on Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic. What's more, on their articles themselves the two countries are listed as "unrecognized states" rather than as "rebel groups" (see the infoboxes on the right on the particular articles). As per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, two different Wikipedia's articles should not describe the same object differently depending on the point of view of their authors - so, either this article should be edited or those articles should be edited, and, given the situation is as described, I believe this article is the one that should be edited.Ruĝa nazuo (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

In that case please provide the source. Not a list of sources that you claim demonstrate the points above. That isn't enough. We need actual reliable sources - in practice that means legal, academic or diplomatic sources - that analyse the situations explicitly in terms of the declarative theory of statement and find in each case that a state exists.

Either that, or we need a demonstration that each is recognised as an independent state by a UN member state. South Ossetia does not count.

If the position is in fact that no such sources exist - and in six years nobody has manage to find one - then they cannot go on this list. Kahastok talk 16:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the basis for the criteria you require? E.g. what is the basis for the idea that it is not enough to prove each of the point that together makes the entity "unrecognized state" but one has to find some kind of particular source where all criteria would be analyzed at a single place? Such sources are typically sourced at the people allied to these entities so it would be easy to claim they are "not neutral/reliable" - but it cannot be otherwise when something is disputed; the very nature of this article means that any claims these entities are "states" will be matched or outnumbered by analysises making a contrarian conclusion, and it is so for each of these entities. Furthermore, what is the basis to say that this would be not needed if South Osetia would be a UN member state? The article deals with partially recognized and completely unrecognized states; many of the other states mentioned are not recognized by other UN members (Somaliland, Transnistria, Nagorno Karabakh). Last but not the least, whatever criteria are seemingly adhered in this article are not adhered anywhere else on Wikipedia for this matter or other matters (with Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic articles describing them as unrecognized states) - yet nobody tries to edit that to make the criteria uniformly applied accross Wikipedia. Essentially, this fact makes this article a kind of POV fork. I will mention this on talk pages of the respective articles so the issue could be resolved. Ruĝa nazuo (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The current criteria present on this article is the result of a consensus that has been developed over years of discussion. I wouldn't be too hasty to just brush it aside. Regarding your point on Somaliland, Transnistria, and Nagorno Karabakh being listed on the article despite no UN member recognition, the fact is that we do have qualified reliable sources detailing that these are indeed "states" as defined by the declarative theory of statehood, even if most other states (be they UN members or not) do not recognise them. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I have read extensively on the arguments made here and elsewhere on the mapping community about the matter. I have one academic source to present. This academic source is focused on comparing economic sustainability of post-Soviet de facto states. The article clearly, and without any dispute places DPR and LPR on the same level as Transnistria, South Ossetia, Artsakh, etc. The article acknowledges the same level of independence in economic decision making, sovereignty, and monopoly on violence in each of these states. Thus, this article clearly favours the argument that these two new de facto states must be given the same treatment as the first wave of state breakaways after the Soviet collapse. Link to the article: [23] Ion Marandici, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, The Political Economy of the Post-Soviet De Facto States: A Paired Comparison of Transnistria and the Donetsk People’s Republic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nima Farid (talk • contribs) 09:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

this article clearly favours the argument that these two new de facto states must be given the same treatment as the first wave of state breakaways after the Soviet collapse. Unless the article itself actually states that they must be given the same treatment then that is just an interpretation of the article, and is thus synthesis of the conclusions reached in the given article. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

According to the abstract "this article explores the resource extraction strategies of de facto states via a paired comparison of Transnistria (PMR) and the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR)" so I don't think it's a synthesis. Alaexis_¿question? 11:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That sentence from the abstract of the linked article above does not explicity state which of the two of the "paired" (whatever that means) comparisons is the de-facto state, the PMR or the DPR. It could mean DPR, it could mean PMR, it could mean both. My point is is that it is not clear. Unless it states so in more detail within the article elsewhere I would consider the statement made by Nima Farid that the article clearly favours the argument that these two new de facto states must be given the same treatment to be false. Nothing I can see from just the abstract states anything clearly from my perspective. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Edited on 16:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC) by Wiz9999 (talk)

In the article itself they are referred to as 'unrecognized states'

“ In 2014, a second generation of self-proclaimed republics emerged in Eastern Ukraine – the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR). Having monopolized the use of coercion, these post-Soviet unrecognized states tax residents ... ”

In any case I've provided below a quote from a book on this subject that uses the term 'de facto state' for these entities. Alaexis_¿question? 13:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

These are "unrecognized unrecognized states". The states that are not even recognized as unrecognized. Ha Ha! Alexxzz123 (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I mean no country recognises Somaliland yet its a nation, Donetsk and Lugansk are Recognised by eachother and South Ossetia, 84.71.67.197 (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

---

This is an excerpt from Unrecognized States and Secession in the 21st Century by Riegl and Bobos (page 12):

“ However, it has become clear that de facto states are not simply ephemeral phenomena that will collapse on their own (Broers 2013); they have demonstrated their longevity. The four de facto states in the former Soviet space have all existed for more than two decades, as has Somaliland, while Northern Cyprus has been a de facto state for four decades. 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 Republic 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 ”

I believe that we can include these entities in the list, obviously noting conflicting opinions. The definition of a de facto state is necessarily subject to interpretation and not everyone agrees that even "established" entities like TRNC and Somaliland are de facto states. Alaexis_¿question? 11:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That text doesn't argue that they are de facto states (only that they could be described as such, which is different), nor does it demonstrate the point in terms of the declarative theory of statehood, let alone demonstrate that this is a widely held view. Kahastok talk 17:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Aren't we applying an impossibly high standard of evidence here? The book uses a very similar definition to the one used in the article (see pages 11-12: staying power, territorial control, state institutions) which is the best we can hope for in social science. The book itself is a reliable source and it describes these entities as the new additions to the universe of de facto states. We also see that there are scholarly articles ([24], [[25]]) using these terms for the entities in question. Alaexis_¿question? 17:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It is a standard of evidence we achieved with a single quote in the cases of Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland and Transnistria:

"...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."

It refers directly to the declarative theory (through Montevideo), and it explicitly says that it is a widely-held view that the standard is met.

I do not see why we should hold Donetsk and Luhansk to a lower standard. Kahastok talk 23:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, this quote is from a 2012 book, so DNR and LNR could not have possibly appeared there. I've provided a source that says that these entities possess the characteristics of de facto states published in 2018 and other sources which use this term. I believe this is sufficient for including them into this article. If you don't agree let's seek outside feedback. Alaexis_¿question? 07:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I've requested feedback at WP:RSN. Alaexis_¿question? 09:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think if Somaliland is included for being a de facto state despite receiving no international recognition the DPR and LPR should be included, as they have de facto held their territory for half a decade by now. Flalf^Talk 13:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, again, that needs sourcing. The problem with adding these two is what it has always been. The fact that - unlike in the case of Somaliland - nobody has ever been able to find a single independent academic, lawyer or diplomat anywhere in the world who has analysed the criteria for statehood and concluded that these are states. Let alone demonstrated that this is a widely-held view in academic, legal or diplomatic circles.

Wikipedia should never ever be the first independent source to reach that conclusion. Kahastok talk 17:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

No, you haven't. You've provided a book that suggests that the case is arguable. That's not the same thing.

If we were to add them based on this, we would be the only independent source on the planet that has concluded that these are in fact states according to the definitions of statehood. That's somewhere we really do not want to be. Kahastok talk 17:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Kahastok and Wiz9999: I found a source which has analysed the criteria for statehood and concluded that these are states: Rocky Esposito, "Ukraine, Self-Determination, and Emerging Norms for Unilateral Secession of States" Washington University Global Studies Law Review 19, no. 1 (2020): 141-166. But it also said that the principles of territorial integrity stand in opposition to a unilateral secessionist movement's legitimacy, even when that movement satisfies the Montevideo criteria. --Utterpolo (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC) — Utterpolo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thanks. Do you have a doi of this article by any chance? Alaexis_¿question? 16:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

We've been told this many times, and every previous time it's turned out that the source has not actually been as explicit or as unambiguous or as convincing as was originally claimed. So you'll understand my view that we should reserve judgement until we have actually seen a quote and preferably have a readily-accessible copy of the source. Kahastok talk 17:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Kahastok, you can download the full text of the article by link. I can paste here the quotes, but you can verify it yourselves --Utterpolo (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot access the article as it requires me to log in. Maybe you're accessing it from a campus computer? Alaexis_¿question? 08:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Alaexis, Kahastok, and Wiz9999: I corrected the link, now you all should be able to see the full text. --Utterpolo (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! The article explicitly states that DNR and LNR meet the Montevideo criteria, so I suppose we should add them to the list. Alaexis_¿question? 10:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Except it doesn't actually say that, does it?

It hems and haws over the fourth criterion (capacity to enter into relations) and doesn't reach a firm conclusion. When it sums up says that they "plausibly" meet the criteria. Which is basically the same as the previous source that said that the case was arguable. This source then goes on to argue that this is necessary but not sufficient to make them states.

So the position is unchanged. If we were to add them now, we would be the only independent source on the planet that has concluded that these are in fact states according to the definitions of statehood. That is unacceptable. Kahastok talk 10:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The article in its current form is completely inconsistent on this issue. Including Somaliland (a state with zero recognition) but not including Donetsk or Luhansk is eurocentrism at best. Why does Wikipedia think the sovereign claims of Ukraine are more important than Somalia? 94roger (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — 94roger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We have evidence that Somaliland is generally accepted (by external academics) to have met the standard of Montevideo, cited earlier in this thread. We have no such evidence for Donetsk or Luhansk.

Incidentally, it's fascinating that we have two accounts with six edits between them apparently so interested in this subject. Would you mind telling us how you found this topic, and whether you have edited Wikipedia before under a different name? Kahastok talk 14:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The source says that they clearly satisfy the first three criteria and arguably satisfied the last and based on this reaches the conclusion that plausibly they meet the Montevideo criteria. At least three more sources have been provided here which refer to DNR and LNR as de facto states. One can find fault with anything but the evidence is overwhelming. Alaexis_¿question? 14:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The business of self determination by secession is a bit of a grey area and Kosovo didn't really help. Still, the territorial integrity bar (for existing (UN) states) is very high and while it is conceivable that Crimea might in effect get over it at some point in the future, it seems quite unlikely that these two will manage that trick any time soon. Seems a lot more people calling them rebels and such than calling them states.Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The evidence certainly is not overwhelming. Far from it. Fact is, you can't name a single independent academic, lawyer or diplomat who holds the view (without qualification) that these are states according to the theory. The best you can do is people hedging their bets. That isn't good enough for our standard, and rightly so. Kahastok talk 15:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The territorial integrity bar is now entirely nonsense in light of Crimea and Kosovo. The fact is the question has become very politicised, and by choosing to recognise some states here but not others you are not being apolitical, rather you are adopting an unintentionally political view of the sovereignty of other countries. The states DO meet the criteria, and there are multiple academic sources to say so, as linked above. Your rejection of some academic sources but not others is what is inconsistent. Now naturally we should not just be including anyone and their dog on this list, this should be a list for serious contenders. Luhansk and Donetsk have been around for five years. This was an acceptable question to ask then (in 2015 when they were considered rebel groups). It isn't now. According to Wikpedia the DNR and LNR have diplomatic representation in some countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_representation_of_Donetsk_and_Luhansk Furthermore your contention that there are no sources is simply wrong. There might be a lack of Western sources but there are plenty of other sources, choosing to value the one more than the other based on nationality is prejudicial. Your interest in my account is none of your business and not relevant, if it helps i'm from the UK and very critical of Russia. I just don't like the hypocrisy that is very clearly on display here. I'm guessing the insinuation is I am some Russian or DNR plant, as though that would make my opinion on the subject any less relevant to discussion. In my opinion you should either remove the already existing states like Transnistria, Abkhazia and Somaliland OR include Luhansk and Donetsk, anything else is splitting hairs. 94roger (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Re this, I did open an RFC (see above) but it didn't attract much attention... Alaexis_¿question? 15:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

My eyes must be poor, is it archived or I just am not seeing it? Can you link it? Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It was at RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_321#Reliable_sources_for_unrecognised_states) actually. Apologies for the confusion. Alaexis_¿question? 18:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, I brought that discussion here for ease of reference.Selfstudier (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Transclusion of above mentioned discussion at RSN

There is now a discussion on whether Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic should appear in the list of unrecognised states. Several users provides multiple examples of these entities being referenced as de facto states and unrecognised states in scholarly articles and this what is written in the book Unrecognized States and Secession in the 21st Century by Riegl and Bobos:

“ However, it has become clear that de facto states are not simply ephemeral phenomena that will collapse on their own (Broers 2013); they have demonstrated their longevity. The four de facto states in the former Soviet space have all existed for more than two decades, as has Somaliland, while Northern Cyprus has been a de facto state for four decades. 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 Republic 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 ”

I think this is quite sufficient to include them in the list, noting differing opinions. I would love to hear outside feedback on this, along with suggestions of reliable sources which can through additional light on this. Alaexis_¿question? 09:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, the question here is, does this source demonstrate that the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic are widely considered in the academic or legal community to meet the requirements of the declarative theory of statehood (possibly as articulated by Montevideo Convention)?

This is a fairly strict standard, but it's there for a reason. Wikipedia should not be the first independent source to declare that a state exists. In cases where the international diplomatic community universally holds that no state exists, we need good evidence to the contrary from the academic or legal community or else we fail the standard of WP:UNDUE.

Editors at Talk:List of states with limited recognition and Talk:List of sovereign states have traditionally rejected sources such as that cited above. The problem is not that the source is unreliable for what it says. The problem is that it doesn't support the claim that Alaexis wishes to make by including Donetsk and Luhansk on the list. Kahastok talk 22:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware that WP endorsed the declarative theory of statehood or any other Political Science theory for that matter. Where in our policy or guidelines does it say thats our standard? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

We don't. If Donetsk or Luhansk were recognised by a UN member state (per the other theory, the constitutive theory of statehood) then that would be fine. But the source doesn't say that either. Kahastok talk 16:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

End Transclusion

Also might I point out that the Montevideo Convention was only actually signed by 20 American (continent) States and while it has become one way of defining international sovereignty you'd be hard pressed to find ANY academic sources describing individual states as meeting the criteria. Find me a single source saying Vietnam meets the Montevideo Convention. No one points out the obvious and not many talk about most countries in these terms. 94roger (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The alternative scheme is by way of recognition but as I said above to go on with this given the obvious lack of consensus here, the only way is via an RFC. You could simply ask the question directly "Should... blah blah?" or you could attempt to amend the criteria in such a way as to get them included in that fashion, that seems more difficult though.Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, it is not unreasonable for an editor to inquire about a recently opened account if it appears that it is a single purpose account, you have not actually edited an article yet, am I right? Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Kahastok and Selfstudier (by the way, thanks to Utterpolo for fixing the actual link to the article). Once again, the article does not clearly state the criteria are met. Instead, it argues they 'may' have been already met. Starting on page 151 and 152 it starts the discussion on whether the DPR and LPR satisfy each one of the four criteria. On page 153 it argues about the requirement of a permanent population and concludes; "Although the ongoing war has displaced a large number of Donbass residents [...] many millions more continue to live in the region. Thus, both proto-states satisfy this criterion." Which is pretty definitive. The second requirement of a defined territory it concludes on page 155 that "Because both breakaway regions have maintained fairly well-defined borders with Ukraine (and firmly fixed borders with Russia, their only other neighbour), they likely satisfy the second Montevideo criterion.", note the use of the word "likely" when saying that the criterion are satisfied. For the third requirement of a government of some form, it concludes on page 158 that "the DPR and LPR possess sufficient governments de jure and de facto to suffice for Montevideo statehood analysis." Again, pretty definitive. The final (fourth) requirement of a capacity to enter into relations with other states is concluded on page 160 with "evidence of Russian influence in the DPR and LPR is extensive, but circumstantial as regards to direct control of governmental functions. Given the principal that the Montevideo factors should be applied flexibly, such sparse circumstantial evidence may not undermine the argument for DPR and LPR." Using the wording "may not undermine" is simply not a conclusive way to conclude this criterion is met. In fact, it states earlier in the article on page 159, regarding the final requirement, that "This factor poses an obstacle to DPR and LPR statehood." and "A state occupied by a foreign power is not independent;" The final conclusion on the matter (within this article) is stated on page 164; "The Donbass conflict may not provide answers." which is followed up by a wishy-washy statement about adjudication being the way forward regarding international acceptance of the two entities. Altogether, this is not decisive support of the Montevideo criteria having been met. - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Before going the RFC way, please see my suggestion of a compromise: we keep DNR and LNR in the excluded entities list but note that there are reliable sources calling them de facto states and claiming that they satisfy the Montevideo criteria fully or partially. I'm open to changes to the wording obviously. If there are other rebel groups who are in the the same grey area we can add them to that list as well provided the sources say similar things about them. Alaexis_¿question? 07:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I'm OK with that, if other less equivocal sourcing shows up, then that will be a good starting point rather than having to rehash all this convo again.Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

If we have a sub-list of active rebel groups that control territory, then that sublist really needs to include all the active rebel groups that control territory. There is no basis on which to include these two, and not the other nineteen entities listed at List of active rebel groups#Groups that control territory. We get around this in the status quo by saying "examples include", but your version presents this as an exhaustive list, or treats these two as somehow exceptional.

I would also note that the source does not support "satisfying the Montevideo criteria for statehood fully or partially". Kahastok talk 12:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

For these two we have reliable sources calling them de facto states and saying that they plausibly meet the Montevideo criteria. If you know of other entities for which the same can be said, you can add them. Alaexis_¿question? 17:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It's probably useful to add where I'm coming from here. To me, there is no point in trying to come to some kind of quick fix to this discussion, if it leaves the article open to problems the next time somebody comes along to discuss a different group - ISIS, or Wa State, or the Houthis in Yemen, or whoever else. If we accept this compromise, what happens when someone starts adding to the new list? Do we say no, or do we accept that the list of List of active rebel groups#Groups that control territory should be included here in full? If we say no, on what basis do we say no? I oppose this solution because I can't see any basis on which we could say no in that situation.

As editors trying to improve the article, we need to aim to be as consistent as possible, without favouring or disfavouring entities from any particular part of the world. We also need to bear in mind that being a state is A Big Deal, and so we should be very wary of declaring entities to be states without solid backing. I believe our current rule achieves this, insofar as it is possible. But the fact is we are - by definition - always dealing with edge cases whatever we do. Kahastok talk 13:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we need to draw a line somewhere when we have a list like this. As the world is messy this line would necessarily be arbitrary to a certain extent, meaning that some entities from the list would be considered by some to not belong to it and vice versa there would be entities in the grey zone satisfying 50%-70%-90% of the criteria. I believe that given this situation the reader is best served by being shown entities that didn't make it into the list but for which there are reliable sources indicating they probably should be there.

Finally, regarding the other rebel groups, if there are similar sources analysing them and reaching a conclusion that they plausibly/likely/maybe satisfy the Montevideo criteria and calling them de facto states, I'm totally fine with including them here. I'm certainly not an expert but a cursory look at the list shows that a lot of them neither claim independence nor have permanent territory and population thus making them clearly ineligible for inclusion into this list. Alaexis_¿question? 18:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

If this is a list of entities that didn't make it into the list but for which there are reliable sources indicating they probably should be there, then Donetsk and Luhansk don't belong on it. Because we don't have reliable sources indicating that they probably should be on the list.

And to be clear, the list at List of active rebel groups#Groups that control territory is explicitly those that control territory and population. Absent sourcing, whether the territory is permanent or not is a matter of opinion. And it's worth pointing out that the source you've been touting here does not unequivocally allow that Donetsk and Luhansk meet the "territory" requirements of Montevideo either. Kahastok talk 18:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that Kahastok's claim here that whether one particular entity or another is a 'state' is A Big Deal is not actually true. Being a widely accepted/recognised state or a UN member however may be. For example, look at all the fuss over Palestine and Kosovo versus say Somaliland or Abkhazia. I understand that editors to this article may disagree and feel themselves that it is a big deal, as this is clearly a subject that they have an interest in. The most acute evidence I have for this claim of lack of importance is that when Alaexis opened up the RSN at the noticeboard barely anyone responded or took notice. Ultimately we are splitting hairs here over a niche subject (even though it is a subject of international law). - Wiz9999 (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It may be a niche subject, but it has substantial impact on pages other than this. There are hundreds of country lists and this article provides a useful standard for them. We also are not living the alternative world where the entities are included and this causes disputes on multiple pages. A clear and cautious approach is a good one, as is not going where reliable sources do not. CMD (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I would say that my last suggestion was as cautious as it gets: add them to the list of excluded entities noting that there are sources calling them de facto states and plausibly satisfying the Montevideo criteria. Alaexis_¿question? 10:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with CMD.

But I think it is worth remembering that the precise question discussed here has been the subject of a war, in which over 10000 people have been killed. Another 6000 or so people were killed in the recent war over Nagorno-Karabakh - which also has no international recognition. Wiz9999 may not remember the Russo-Georgian War in 2008, but suffice it to say that yes, there was something one might reasonably call a "fuss" over Abkhazia. The reason for no "fuss" now, is because little is actively changing, not because the disputes are not still significant.

We need to strictly follow the inclusion criteria and hence our sources, without favouring either side in any dispute. In this case, there is no evidence that Donetsk and Luhansk should go on the list, so they should not. Kahastok talk 10:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

As no consensus seems to be emerging, I've filed an RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 09:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

US recognition of Moroccan annexation of Western Sahara

I wish I had caught it earlier, but I am pretty sure that the USA recognizes Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara since somewhere December 2020 as part of the deal with Morocco to recognize Israel. I do not have the permissions to edit (no 500 edits on my side), so I figured I'd post here again.

Here are some sources I digged up from a quick Google search, if they are reliable enough

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/12/14/isra-d14.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/12/11/us-recognised-moroccos-claim-to-western-sahara-now-what

Let me know if there are better ways to communicate requests for edits in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryota Mitarai (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Please ue the edit request interface in future when requesting changes. - Wiz9999 (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan has an RFC

Taiwan has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. STSC (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the inclusion of DNR and LNR in the list of states with limited recognition

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus against their inclusion in the list. Editors state that they do not have limited recognition as they are entirely unrecognized. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Should DNR and LNR be included in the list of states with limited recognition [26]? If not, should it be mentioned in the list of excluded entities that some sources consider them de facto states 'plausibly' satisfying the criteria for statehood [27]? Alaexis_¿question? 09:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Support. The discussion can be found here. The data sources supporting the inclusion are:

• Esposito, Rocky (2020). "Ukraine, Self-Determination, and Emerging Norms for Unilateral Secession of States". Washington University Global Studies Law Review. 19 (1): 141–166. the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples' Republics plausibly meet the Montevideo criteria for statehood
• Riegl, Martin. Unrecognized States and Secession in the 21st Century. p. 12. ISBN 978-3-319-56913-0. 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 Republic 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
• Ion Marandici, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, The Political Economy of the Post-Soviet De Facto States: A Paired Comparison of Transnistria and the Donetsk People’s Republic. "this article explores the resource extraction strategies of de facto states via a paired comparison of Transnistria (PMR) and the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR)...", "In 2014, a second generation of self-proclaimed republics emerged in Eastern Ukraine – the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR). Having monopolized the use of coercion, these post-Soviet unrecognized states tax residents ..." Alaexis_¿question? 09:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above discussion. Consensus on this page is for some general bright-line inclusion rules to make sure we are as consistent as possible, and reduce editor subjectivity. Furthermore, this is a simple list and quite binary in nature, so changes should require quite firm sources that do not, especially with all the space to explain that a book has, caveat their own uncertainty with phrases such as "plausibly meet" and "could be described". CMD (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion, criteria not satisfied. Support a cited and properly explained addition to the excluded section that does not exaggerate the case.Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as per the above discussion and as per CMD. I would argue that Wikipedia should never be the first independent source to conclude without qualification that a state exists in these cases, and that's precisely what we would be doing if were to add them based on this evidence. On the second suggestion, I assume the proposal is this (since Donetsk and Luhansk are mentioned in the existing text). It seems to me that each of the rebel groups that control territory could have an argument for inclusion on such a sub-list. I oppose on principle the creation of such a list without any objective inclusion criterion, and I oppose using the excluded entities section as a WP:COATRACK for the List of active rebel groups. Kahastok talk 18:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Most of these rebel groups do not even claim independence so there is no justification for including them here. WP:COATRACK is not applicable as the entities in question would be only briefly mentioned in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 18:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Only briefly mentioned in the article is the status quo, which no-one has (yet) objected to. The text you suggested is a full blown list that requires justification and objective inclusion criteria. It has neither. You also can't have do not even claim independence so there is no justification for including them, because there is no reason to assume that a claim of independence is required for inclusion on the sub-list. Kahastok talk 20:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I am not wholly opposed to including Donestk and Luhansk at this point. Yes, I agree that the sources are deficient in actually making this claim directly. However, I do believe that it is a matter of time at this point before a source states the Montevideo criteria have been fully met, we are just playing a waiting game for that moment right now. I do think a legitimate argument could be made for Donestk and Luhansk to have a WP:COMMONSENSE justification for inclusion here, considering how borderline the sources are already are for satisfying the Montevideo criteria. I am however fully opposed to the suggestion by Alaexis to expand the excluded entities section to specifically address these two entities. They are either on the list or they are not. These half-measures will satisfy no-one, and it creates a situation where the list can be flooded by other entities from the rebel groups that control territory to be included here as well in a second/parallel list in the excluded entities section. There are currently about 8 entities from the list of active rebel groups that control territory (including Donestk and Luhansk) that have some sort of claim to independence (out of a total of 21 entities). These are Ambazonia, Coalition of Patriots for Change (through the self-declared Republic of Logone), Azawad, Kachin Independence Army, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Southern Movement. The mention of Donestk and Luhansk in the excluded entities section of this article is meant primarily as an example of an excluded rebel group entity. If they were to be included on the actual list here (for whatever reason) they would then be replaced as examples in the excluded entities section by Ambazonia, the Southern Movement, or one of the other such rebel groups that control territory with some claim to independence from the list of active rebel groups that control territory. - Wiz9999 (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Although it is conceivable that the excluded list might grow somewhat (I do not object to this either) any editor claiming D&L-type status for some group would need to produce several sources in support as has been done for D & L and I think the majority would in fact not be able to do so therefore I think this fear is somewhat overblown. Perhaps there could be criteria for inclusion in the excluded? At least 3 suitable rs? What we cannot do is include against the criteria.Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be criteria for inclusion in the excluded? This is exactly what I am talking about. Do you see how this is just creating a parallel list to List of active rebel groups#Groups that control territory? The section is meant to be a set of criteria for what goes into this article's list. It is not meant to be a list in its own right! If that is what you want in this article then a new section entirely should be made for it, as a list of entries is not "criteria". Besides, such a list is just WP:Content forking of the rebel group list in any case. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I however must disclose to you now that I have started a discussion over at Talk:List of active rebel groups to Split that article into its two sub-sections (List of active rebel groups#Groups that control territory and List of active rebel groups#Rebel groups by state), as the latter sub-section is full of WP:OR content that I feel should be separated from the much better sourced list of the content of the former sub-section. I mention this here, as I see how starting that discussion could be seen as inappropriate WP:Canvassing for this discussion or attempting to split this discussion, but that has been a separate discussion that I have been wanting to have about that article for a while now regardless. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I don't accept the premise that we would be creating a parallel list, though. The alternative method is to remove all the excluded (because they are not included) and put them in the rebel list, right? No more debates after that.Selfstudier (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as per the arguments brought up above by Kahastok. There might come a time when enough sources clearly identify these entities as states, but right now there just isn't enough pull in that direction to warrant their inclusion on Wikipedia. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I think their current place on the excluded entities list is perfect. Neither the DNR or LNR is recognized by any state, not even Russia. They are best categorized as rebels that hold territory, not states. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2021

The State of SCNRFP (The Southern Cherokee Nation and the red fire People) we are an independent recognise Neutral State Please see the link to all the countries that have recognised us. Including the USA, The UK and other countries that are reg with the UN. Please see the bottom of the page on our website for all the countries that have recognised the State of SCNRFP. https://scnrfpgov.com/recognition

A Theocracy Government located within the Recognized Sovereign Jurisdictions and Sovereign Treaty Boundaries located in the beautiful Mountains of the Blue Ridge, Appalachian, and Great Smoky Mountains via treaties, and offshore foreign diplomatic offices located globally, and foreign territorial boundary jurisdictions located globally via 8a. & 8.b. international agreements 105.163.172.198 (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. However there is nothing in your reference website that confirms you are a state according to the UN. As far as I can see all the references on the linked page are from Wikipedia. This is contrary to WP:CIRCULAR even if there was mention in the Wikipedia articles about the 'State of SCNRFP'. If you can provide alternative sources please do so according to WP:RS and WP:V. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2021

REMOVE 'a capacity to enter into relations with other states.'

This is not a criterion in international public law to be considered as a state. Another example is that the recognition of a state is not a international public law criterion for its existence. 2A01:CB04:71B:3B00:15E3:E251:1647:2023 (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

If you follow the given wikilink you will see that the capacity criterion is referenced. Please resubmit your request in the form change X to Y and provide appropriate sourcing for the desired change. Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Recognition of Croatia

According to International_recognition_of_Croatia, recognition of Croatia is problematic. Why does it not contained on this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.16.65 (talk • contribs)

From List of states with limited recognition#Excluded entities:
Some states can be slow to establish relations with new UN member states and thus do not explicitly recognise them, despite having no dispute and sometimes favorable relations. These are excluded from the list. Examples include Croatia and Montenegro.
- Wiz9999 (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Edits?

Hamas (political party) also claims all of former mandatory Palestine to be part of Palestine as they believe in the one-state solution.

Also, should Armenia be on this list as although there are no diplomatic relations between Pakistan-Armenia however nobody has a claim to Armenia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NaniEmperor (talk • contribs) 00:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

France recognizes North Korea

The article is wrong when it affirms France doesn't recognize North Korea as a state. That was the case over a decade ago. France's official position is that North Korea is an independent State, with which France even maintains cultural and humanitarian relations through a French office headed by a French diplomat established in Pyongyang in the past decade, but that France and North Korea do not maintain official diplomatic relations, which is different from recognition as a State. Sources (the French government itself): https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/dossiers-pays/coree-du-nord/ and https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/dossiers-pays/coree-du-nord/relations-bilaterales/ Dan Palraz (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

PLO decisions to suspend recognition of Israel

There is disagreement over which month to refer to when the PLO began withdrawing recognition of Israel. This decision was issued many times and is often not implemented by President Abbas.--Sakiv (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

If reliable sources are in disagreement and we cannot identify a balance of opinion, it is usual to incorporate all the differing opinions. If your statement "There is disagreement over which month to refer to when the PLO began withdrawing recognition of Israel." can be corroborated as another main opinion of reliable sources then we can simply include it in the article with a suitable ref. Since it appears not to have been implemented, it seems rather academic in any case.Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Add Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan to the list-AINH (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done:: Please provide evidence that states are recognising the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan as a separate state to Afghanistan. This is not the same as recognising them (or failing to recognise them) as a legitimate government of Afghanistan. Kahastok talk 08:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan?

I can see from the revision history that this is already the source of editing disputes, so it's probably best to start a discussion about it.

It brings me no joy to say this, but I think it's time to add the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan to the list. Anyone who's reading this probably already knows by now that the Taliban regime, which is wholly unrecognized, de facto is Afghanistan now. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is still recognized by all UN members as the legitimate regime, but it's now a government in exile and is effectively nonexistent. Unfortunately, the Taliban is no longer just a rebel group with some territory; they have an entire state now.

The question is: what do we do with this information? What is the most accurate way to describe this horrible, chaotic situation? Should we wait for more updates to provide clarity? Should we wait for the Taliban to make a public declaration of a new regime? Should we wait for another polity to accept them as the ruling regime? Should we wait for the republic in exile to officially surrender? Or should we add the IEA to the list as an unrecognized de facto state? My understanding of the situation is that the republic has fallen, and that's all the information we need to describe the Taliban as the new state & their state as an unrecognized one.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 06:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

What we do is nothing unless some state decides to remove recognition from Afghanistan as a state. Which is almost certainly not going to happen.

While I would imagine several countries are going to refuse to recognise the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, that is a different concept and not something this article is concerned with. Kahastok talk 07:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The heart of the disagreement seems to be whether the Taliban is the unrecognized leader of the same state, or whether the IEA is an unrecognized state in the same geography. I'm under the impression that the latter is the case.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 08:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

That gets quite into the academic weeds of what exactly a state is. For the purposes of this list, civil wars are not listed if they are contesting the same area, as that is a dispute over government rather than over statehood. CMD (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Given that the Taliban now effectively control Afghanistan including the capital I would say it's right to include them now in this article. C. 22468 Talk to me 13:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan is a state absent RS saying it isn't.Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

If another nation Recognizes it then it should be added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.52.72 (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean historically, the IEA was recognized by 4 UN members like Pakistan, Turkmenistan (both of them are its neighbors), Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as the official successor to the Islamic State of Afghanistan, prior to the 9/11 attacks, where all four of them revoked their recognition of the IEA. For this "updated" version, so far no nation currently (including the original four nations as mentioned), except possibly PRC this time, given to this article. Chad The Goatman (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Only if the other state recognises the new Taliban régime as an entirely different state to Afghanistan, rather than as a new government of Afghanistan. Which seems pretty unlikely. In 1996-2001, those countries recognised the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan. Kahastok talk 07:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

What? The article I showed you, soundly implies they'll eventually planned to recognized their control as the new government of Afghanistan, based on quotes from their very first paragraph. Not as still the same organization that is now fully up to 95-98% occupation of the de facto 'no longer' existing predecessor, prior their biggest offensive during the past weeks. "China is prepared to recognise the Taliban as the legitimate ruler of Afghanistan if the terrorist group manages to overpower the democratically elected government in Kabul, US News has learned." As well two new articles came from the IEA's page, also the final current article as of this time, reveals if they earn their recognition as the new government of Afghanistan, they need to them of stay out of their politics.

Also they're are new sources that one of the four nations, Pakistan, are already warming up to re-recognized them again in the near-future. As well Bangladesh, seems to be accepting them as the successor to the IRA. Chad The Goatman (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

If they recognising the Taliban as "legitimate ruler of Afghanistan", then they are saying that the Taliban is a different government of the same state, not the government of a completely different state.

It is not that unusual for a government of a state to be violently overthrown. List of coups and coup attempts since 2010 lists two successful coups d'état this year alone, in Myanmar and Mali. It is not that unusual in such cases for some countries to recognise the coup leaders and for others to continue to recognise the previous government. I fail to see how this case is fundamentally different.

Even if everything you describe comes to pass, every state in the UN will recognise that Afghanistan is a legally-constituted sovereign state. Just as they did in 1996-2001. The only point in question would be who is the legal government of that state. Kahastok talk 19:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Patience, they haven't declared anything yet. Beshogur (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

whether the Taliban is the unrecognized leader of the same state, or whether the IEA is an unrecognized state in the same geography. Is it so hard to tell them apart? The entity has a different name and all the institutions of the Islamic Republic are gone. Of course it is a different state. Ythlev (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

For instance, the UN ambassador for Afghanistan, appointed by deposed government, is still in post and new government has not appointed a new one as yet. There is also a procedure for changing the name of a state (ISO). Gov and state are two different things, long and short of it.Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Karabakh

James Ker-Lindsay wrote in 2012 that Nagorny Karabakh was then generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria for statehood. Now when he himself have an account in English wikipedia, we can ask him directly, what is his opinion, whether Nagorny Karabakh is generally regarded now as meeting the Montevideo criteria for statehood? I understand perfectly well that the user's comment on the discussion page will never be a reliable source for the article, and that someone may even doubt that the user is the one he pretends to be, but I believe that after the 2020 war it will be important to rediscuss this issue. And having a new colleague - a recognized expert in the field can be of great help. --Somerby (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Someone asked if that was him on his YouTube channel and he said it wasn't, so having him help with the article doesn't seem like an option for now. Ryota Mitarai (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)