Talk:Stateless nation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note:Defining a Stateless nation[edit]

Please, add to list only nation that meet these criteria:

  • has no sovereign state of its own
  • does not form a majority in any sovereign state
  • one or more autonomist or secessionist movements are known to exist
  • not recognized by any UN members as a state (see also: partially recognized state)

These criteria help to define a stateless nation and prevents confusion with other separation movements.Vatasura 01:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled)[edit]

The "List of Stateless Ethnic Groups" link shouldn't link to List of active autonomist and secessionist movements. The Roma are stateless, but they aren't a secessionist group.

I'm not sure this article is about what it should be about.[edit]

Disambig for stateless says; "A stateless society is another word for anarchy." This article is talking about people without a country. This should be fixed. Zazaban 23:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be merged[edit]

The article defines a specific term used in International Relations, and does not represent the same exact idea as the other term. The other term relates to annexation due to common ethnicity..This term has more to do with a group of people who have no state of their own, however fit the definition of a nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.221.225 (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Stateless nation" is term used in academic studies of nationalism, identity and ethnicity and should have its own article. To suggest the concept is the same as irredentism shows a misunderstanding of the subject. --Joowwww (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've realised the merge was stale since Nov 08 and have removed the template. --Joowwww (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the proposal was made, but maybe there should be link here to irredentism and vice versa? Alinor (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of stateless nations[edit]

I think we should compile a list such as:

  • No state and no national administrative entity: Roma, others
  • Autonomous administrative entity only, but no state: Kurds (Iraq), Turkestani (China), others
  • Historical cases: Jews, many former colonies, etc.

Alinor (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Should Scotland be included? It legaly exists as a state within the UK, has a legal system, a parliament and a government. Inclusion of Scotland seems like someone trying to make a political point re. the forthcoming referendum. 164.138.239.2 (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that Scotland sould be added.--132.64.215.139 (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Scotland is added, shouldn't England also be included? It is also a nation in the UK, but without any devolved government of it's own. 2A04:4A43:974F:F2B4:4CBC:CE4B:D692:6A2A (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

multi-ethnic states[edit]

They [separatists] usually reject the principle of a multi-ethnic state, certainly in cases where one of its ethnic groups seeks sovereignty.

was changed to

They do not often reject the principle of a multi-ethnic state, since these ethnic groups primarily seek national sovereignty versus state sovereignty.

I don't know which is more true, but the first version has the virtue of coherence; the 'since' in the second makes no sense to me at all (but that may be only because I can't think straight with this toothache). —Tamfang (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You should also add Sapmi, because Sapmi is a stateless nation. Sapmi is the nation of the sami people in northern scandinavia nad on the kola peninsula. --77.222.189.91 (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Population values[edit]

Did you make up the numbers? 80.174.178.74 (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues[edit]

This article is a bit of a mess. The exclusion of non-irredentist groups is specious. By default, an article at this title should not require separatism as a criteria for inclusion; it is an additional facet to statelessness. The article is needlessly preoccupied with separatist movements, which are already covered at List of active autonomist and secessionist movements and List of irredentist claims or disputes. The article also has no prose on stateless nations in Africa and the Americas – this is a crucial point as modern statelessness is mostly found in these regions (given that it is often a condition of colonialism). SFB 09:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is very true- to be a stateless nation a group does not need to be actively fighting to gain statehood. In Wales for example, most would identify as Welsh but very few want more than regional autonomy. SMcM (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans[edit]

I noticed that the Inuit are included in this list, but I see no other Native American peoples listed. Can someone explain? B14709 (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtuns[edit]

Why do they keep removing my inclusion of Pashtuns.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.109.243 (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Independence movement of groups which already are the ethnic majority in an independent state are not listed (e.g. English independence, Flemish independence). Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtuns are not a majority. They are 45% of Afghanistan, clearly the minority. You need to have 50% or more to become the majority. Look up the demographics of Afghanistan, Pashtuns are off by the majority. --137.207.34.204 (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups in Afghanistan, (Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, Others 4%). Pashtuns are clearly the majority of Afghanistan. The ethnic group with the highest % is the majority of the state. Vatasura (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not true. Majority means more than 50%. Every race in Afghanistan is less than 50%..... if Pashtuns from KPK and FATA joined Afghanistan, it would be 70%. --2001:1970:5E5D:A200:1C41:A55E:39C7:9684 (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtuns are the plurality, not the majority.68.117.218.247 (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please include Pashtuns to this list. Even in the world, the word Afghan does not mean Pashtun anymore. Afghanistan is persianized? --2001:1970:5E5B:AE00:4D33:2602:8B1A:A543 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtuns are obviously the dominant ethnic group in Afghnistan. Prior to a part of Afghanistan being annexed into the British empire (now part of Pakistan), Pashtuns were a majority (and in fact the term Afghan initially referred to Pashtuns). Now they are still a large plurality, but not a majority. Given this, though not really technically a stateless nation, they would technically qualify for this list SMcM (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to sound like a broken record, but this is all original research and our articles are meant to be based upon what reliable sources say about a subject. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have entirely misunderstood what I said if you were responding to me- I was not advocating them being on the list, just pointing out they qualify according to the flimsy criteria of the list. Also, all of what I just said is entirely accurate- Afghanistan was once a larger state, including what is now a part of Pakistan inhabited predominately by million of Pashtuns. There are properly cited articles on this site that detail these things. I could provide citations here, but I really have no need to, as it is obvious that Pashtuns don't really belong on this list- it would be like including Javanese as a stateless nation even though they make up 40% of Indonesia's population and dominate its politics.
SMcM (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

every language?[edit]

As there are several thousand individual languages and fewer than 200 independent states, it follows that the vast majority of ethnic groups is "stateless" in the sense that they do not have their own nation state.

It follows if two languages necessarily imply two ethnic groups. Can this sentence be improved? —Tamfang (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It can be removed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not in some cases, it may be difficult. Scottish people have Gaelic and Scots, two distinct languages as a part of their culture. Same with Baloch people,they have the Iranian Baloch and Dravidian Brahui language. Remember, Brahui people are surrounded by Balochis. I'm talking about too entirely seperate languages from seperate language families. Different dialects of closely related languages in the same language familiy is another matter to discuss--137.207.34.204 (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More to add[edit]

I wonder following groups should be also listed, all have more than 10 million people and not a majority in their countries. Malayali, Gujaratis, Oriya people, Kannada people, Biharis, Telugu people, Marathi people, Cantonese people, Hui people, Hakka people, Igbo people, Copts, Amhara people, Mongo people & Kanuri people .@Photnart. (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Also Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Taiwan, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, West Papua and Northern Cyprus.--132.64.215.139 (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of these groups have an active Seccssion/autonomy movement or nationalism politics. I think some of them consider themselves not even as a nation. Northern Cyprus is not really a stateless nation, because Turks are a majority in Turkey.Vatasura 01:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should at least add the Copts and the Amazigh. These groups do have nationalist politics. KeymasterOne (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Palestinian peoples and State of Palestine[edit]

There is a contradiction in the fact of existence of UN-observer state Palestine and the listing of Palestinian people here. Of course one can argue that Palestinians were stateless between 1959 (dissolution of All-Palestine Government in Egyptian protectorate of Gaza) to 2013 (upgrade of Palestinian Authority to non-member State status in UN), but this should be listed in historical section, not here. Opinions?GreyShark (dibra) 18:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there should be 2 options; (1) Or to add also Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Taiwan, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, West Papua and Northern Cyprus. (2) Or to remove Palestine. I personally favor the first option - To add all the rest.--132.64.215.139 (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan isn't a stateless nation- nor is Transnistria- we're doing perfectly fine out here. Villeum (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Sardinians a stateless nation?[edit]

The listing of the Sardinians as a stateless nation is disputed, therefore let us discuss:

pro:

I think the Sardinians are a linguistic-ethnic group related to Latin peoples. The Sardinians are the largest linguistic minority in Italy and form 79% of the total population of the autonomous region of Sardinia. The ancestors of the Sardinians are originally from the Franco-Iberian and Italy. There are four varieties of the Sardinian language Sardu, Logudorese, Sassarese and Gallurese. The word "Sardinians" is used for the people who live in Sardinia and for the Sardinian-speaking people. The Sardinians are ethnically related mainly to the Catalans and Italians. The Sardinians have their own culture, history, language and nationalism. The Sardinian nationalists claim Sardinians are a separate people, but the Italian nationalists claim Sardinians as a part of the Italian culture. it is the same situation with the Catalans and Spaniards.--Vatasura (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also for adding the Sardinians. --132.64.215.139 (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me too--95.234.81.141 (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for adding the Sardinians to the list too. Main reasons:
1- Original culture and history, developed largely outside the italian influence.
2- A different native language, with nearly 1000 years of history. Linguistic studies (such as those conducted by Professor Roberto Bolognesi, for example) have shown that Sardinian is not divided in two languages at all. The grammatical structure is the same everywhere, and the lexicon is almost coincident (over 90%). It's considered to be more uniform than, for example, Norwegian. Majority of sardinians speak Sardinian.
4- More than 45% of Sardinians are indipendentists, the same percentage as the Scots.
5- As an ethnic group sardinian people's DNA, when compared to other European peoples, is characterised by some additional peculiarities of their own, kind of like the basques (source: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html and a lot of other studies about it), a thing that originated from a founder effect and a genetic drift of it's population. That could be relevant to demonstrate how little the two populations interacted for centuries, even being so close.--L2212 (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6- "Sardinian people" as an entity is recognised by decades, even by italian law (and that's saying something).--L2212 (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


contra:

They are not. Sardinians can't be a linguistic-ethnic group because: in northern Sardinia, people don't speak Sardinian but two different languages, Sassarese and Gallurese; there is not a fully recognised Sardinian language but two well distinct variants that the scholars of today (mainly linked to politics) are trying to show as unified language (by using also an artificial language, composed by the two variants, who is actually spoken by less than 20 people) but according to linguists there has never been a unified Sardinian language; there is not an ethnic census, so the number of inhabitants that you believe Sardinian are just the people who live in Sardinia, the data that you use come from a normal census for all the people who live there, nothing to do with ethnicities; if the Sardinians had been a distinct ethnic group, how many Italians and how many Sardinians live in Sardinia? do you have data with references for that? Paradoxically you think that Sardinians are different from Italians, but strange enough that Grazia Deledda won the nobel prize for her masterpieces in Italian, two presidents of the Italian Republic came from Sardinia, the composer of the Italian anthem was in part Sardinian, the politician Berlinguer, the leading figure of the Italian Communist Party was from Sardinia, a lot of influence to be a minority group; in Italy we have minority groups like Germans in Alto Adige (with an ethnic census who shows that 70% of people are German and 30% are Italian) or Slovenes in some parts of Friuli Venezia Giulia, well they are represented in the Italian Parliament as minority groups without links to the regions they come from, Sardinia is represented like all the Italian regions. Sardinia is an autonomous region for historical and geographic reasons not for ethnic reasons. The fact that there are few people who claim to be a nation does not mean that they are actually a nation. Behind Catalans there is a nationalism that is thousand times richer and older with only one language as well as an ethnic census, and a much stronger autonomy since the beginning.--93.32.179.55 (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am also for adding Sardinians. The Sardinian Action Party is one of the oldest in Europe to promote self-government for a people within a modern nation state. Plus, the criteria the list has been written on (not having a state of their own, not forming a majority in any Sovereign State, autonomist or secessionist movements being known to exist, not being recognized by any UN members) are all present, so I see little sense in not even citing them because of some personal value judgements (always expressed by some anonymous users).--Dk1919 (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without doubt, separatism in Sardinia is a component of its politics but this is not enough to consider Sardinia a nation. It is not culturally homogeneous, in the North people are totally different and speak different languages. There is not that common culture that is the base for nationalism. Moreover few Sardinians are able to speak what can be a "Sardinian" language because of the historical differences between the two main varieties, that some linguists consider also separated languages. Imho there are not the bases to list that nationalism.--79.18.106.252 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore: A stateless nation is an ethnic group, religious group, linguistic group or other cohesive group.... people from Sardinia cannot be considered in none of those groups.--79.18.106.252 (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, another coesive group. What you said is just one of the many other interpretations you are giving of the link between a region and a specific community, which you base upon "ethnicity", language, etc. This concept of identity is clearly the most ambiguous, for a wide variety of reasons (Catalan itself may be split into a plethora of separate lects, see Valencian or also Algherese... By the way, the only linguistic source I know that divides Sardinian in two distinct branches is actually Ethnologue) in addition to being not inclusive, but is not the only one. There is also the independent variable based on institutions (Scottish nationalism) and another one based on the territory (an island) a community has been living in for centuries. This is the case of Sardinians, as the researches on identity in Sardinia show (Identità e autonomia in Sardegna e Scozia, Gianmario Demuro, Francesco Mola, Ilenia Ruggiu). What you said actually diverges from the topic - can you please write some serious counter argumentations as to why Sardinians (which are a stateless nation even to other sources, like Eurominority or the Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations by James Minahan, pg. 1661) *can not fit* any of the criteria considered to be listed, which, I repeat, are:
  • Has no own Sovereign State.
  • Does not form a majority in any Sovereign State.
  • Autonomist or secessionist movements is known to exist.
  • Not recognized by any UN members.

Otherwise, I think we're just splitting hairs and you are removing a piece of content along with the sources attesting it (posting other argumentations without sources).--Dk1919 (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I've managed to gather another reference to the existence of a Sardinian nation, coming from Francesco Cesare Casula (Glossario di autonomia Sardo-Italiana, presentazione del 2007 di Francesco Cossiga, Logus Mondi Interattivi), one of the most important historians in Italy: la Nazione Sarda, oggi, non è altro che la somma delle civiltà dell'isola e non il prodotto dei soli sardi indigeni (literally, "the Sardinian Nation, up to this day, is none other than the sum of the various island's civilisations, rather than just the product of indigenous Sardinians"). Casula goes even forth, mentioning that this concept goes back to the Middle Ages to describe the island's people, some times in conflict with the Catalan one. It's clear the link between the island's community, albeit internally differentiated within sub-regions, and the land is a well defined territory. Summing up, there are already three references, plus Sardinians themselves meeting all the criteria, in order for them to be listed. Let's see what you can provide to support your thesis. You are also pleased to reply as a registered user - clearly the first IP adress and the one you've been using now is the same - it's quite annoying when you don't know whom to refer. I also let you know that, had you not been seen for a couple of days (it's not the first time you do that, in order to keep the topic always open), I'd be going the restore the content along with the references I've already attached to).--Dk1919 (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sardinians fit all of the criteria, and should be added to the list.--L2212 (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Up to now, that makes a total of 4 people being in favour of adding Sardinians to the list. Plus, Sardinians fit the criteria required to be listed *and* there are reliable sources to prove it. Now, let us see if the anonymous user has something else to say (hoping he'll post as a registered member as I urged him to), providing its claims with some references. Otherwise, I'll be going to restore the content, as it was supposed to be.--Dk1919 (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, other sources like Eve Hepburne's works (for instance, Island Nations in a Europe of the Peoples: Corsica and Sardinia compared, New Challenges for Stateless Nationalist and Regionalist Parties and so one, but there's more of them) refer to the statelessness case of Sardinia. All in all, a majority of the users in here, with the exception of an anonymous one which has not backed his claims with any sources, have expressed their favour of adding Sardinians to the list. They fit the criteria and there are reliable references to confirm their mention, so it is not a case of original research. Plus, since the last post the anonymous has apparently remained silent and did not reply to the question posed: therefore, tomorrow I'll restore the content with the sources.--Dk1919 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the content, just like emerged from the discussion, even though I forgot to add another piece of reference in which Sardinia is mentioned: Atlas of Stateless Nations in Europe: Minority Peoples in Search of Recognition, Mikael Bodlore-Penlaez, 2011, pg. 70--Dk1919 (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous keeps removing this piece of content, along with the sources, claiming this to be a case of original research: well, just the books I mentioned acknowledging Sardinian presence are two out of the four reliable (yes, they're impartial by Wikipedia standards) sources which are even listed in the reference list. These alone would suffice, but if you want more there's even Eurominority groups and other works in the field. Please stop reverting.--Dk1919 (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the anonymous has been refusing to get the point all along, finally resorting to personal attacks against me as its last resource (and repeatedly breaking the Wikipedia guide lines in the process). Now the page's been protected - even if I personally think it's a case of an already registered Italian user posing as an anonymous profile. Either it won't show up for a while (I hope so...) or it will throw off its anonymity-provided mask.--Dk1919 (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russians?[edit]

The problem is that after the Russian Revolution and October Coup d'etat the Russians as a people and political nation were divided in two. Since 1920s Russian identity - apart from formal recognition in passports - was denied by communist authorities. Because of that, after the WWII - in which Russian People lost 30 millions of lives - Russians who survived effectively became 'Soviet People', who became the people of RF after so called 'perestroika' - thus the True-Russians are stateless now for almost a century. All of those things are, of course, very well documented - and the Russian National organisations do exist. Should Russians be included?213.93.14.13 (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead statements[edit]

The lead currently has what I think are two very dubious opinions stated as if they were incontrovertible facts: "A stateless nation is an ethnic group, religious group, linguistic group or other cohesive group which is not the majority population in any nation state", and "The term implies that the group "should have" such a state, and thus expresses irredentism". The latter statement seems particularly extreme and pov, and both are unsupportable in a lead unless they are shown to be the overwhelming opinion in numerous sources. "Implies" is particularly troubling - it is essentially saying that regardless of what ANY user of the phrase actually say they mean by "stateless nation", what they actually mean is that the "stateless nation" should become a state. That seems an astonishing claim to seriously make. Also, having the desire to create a new state, or being a newly created state, is something very different from the definition of irredentism. These statements have no associated content in the body of the article, and were unsourced until a single reference for each was given, but without page numbers. Neither work appears to be specific to the subject the article. At the very least page numbers must be provided, and I also ask that the actual content in the sources relating to these opinions be reproduced here in order to prove that editorialising is not at work in the lead. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page 55 has now been added to the ref cited for the "irredentism" claim, however there is no "irredentism" appearing on page 55 in a google search for that term's use in that source: [1]. I again ask the editor who has cited this source to reproduce the text that is being used to support this claim.
Hi Tiptoethrutheminefield, I dont know, who has added this to Stateless nation, but I searched for sources and found a source for the claim (The term implies that the group "should have" such a state) on 55 page, Routledge Handbook of Ethnic Conflict. But the second part (thus expresses irredentism) was not mentioned on 55p. It is also possible to find the second part by more googling. I have now made the ref clear on page Stateless nation, where its belongs.

What about this? [2]

(Vatasura) 04:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who added it? Vatsura, you added it! [3] By adding a source at the end you were saying that the source supported ALL the content including the "irredentism" content. This is Wikipedia derived content [4], so cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia content. If you have got access to page 55 could you please reproduce here the text that is in it that justifies the "term implies that the group "should have" such a state" content. I do not think such a sweeping claim is justified. There is no copyright issue in reproducing a few sentences of it here. I am now going to delete the "irredentism" content as unsourced. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the sentence (The term implies that the group "should have" such a state and thus expresses irredentism) was not added by me. Yes, the sources were added by me, I have not denied it. I don't mind, if you remove the part "thus expresses irredentism". For (The term implies that the group "should have" such a state) use this link [5]. Go to page 51 and scroll down to page 55. You'll find it on the last section. Vatasura 02:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see nothing in the link [6] you gave that supports "The term implies that the group 'should have' such a state" wording. Would you just reproduce here the text that you say supports it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The Routledge Handbook of Ethnic Conflict, Karl Cordell and Sefan Wolff, 55p.Vatasura 18:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the quote from the source, I would say that the source does not support the article content. The source says "at the extreme end of the spectrum for autonomy, we find claims for independence or secession". This means that the majority of the claims of stateless nations do not contain claims for independence or succession - so the wording "The term implies that the group 'should have' such a state" is not supported since not even the majority of stateless nations say they "should have" (as well as the already pointed out issue that the content is essentially saying that regardless of what ANY user of the phrase actually say they mean by "stateless nation", what they actually mean is that the "stateless nation" should become a state). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it supports this. Regardless what every stateless nations want, it explains the meaning of the word "stateless". Stateless nations often change their demand from autonomy --> greater autonomy --> independence. Depending on the situation, some stateless nation skip this process and move directly to independence. According to Gallagher Cunningham, there are currently over one hunderd stateless nations pressing for greater self-determination around the globe. That means they want more than autonomy. The vast majority of these group are unlikely to achieve independence (2014:2). It does not mean that they dont want independence, but it is almost impossible to achieve it, that why independence is rated as extreme.Vatasura 21:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feyli Lurs[edit]

Is this group of people missing in the list? Lotje (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lotje, I think the Feyli Lurs are a subgroup of Lur people.

  • Do the Lurs consider themselves a separate nation?
  • Do the Lurs claim Luristan literally means "Land of Lurs"?
  • Is there any Lur nationalism, national parties or movements who demand autonomy for Lurs?

If none of the points apply, then Lurs dont meet the criteria of list.Vatasura (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Vatasura, this website might answer some of your questions. Maybe consulting the Feyli Lurs wikipedian? Lotje (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lotje, Thanks for your links, but now I'm even more confused, Are Feyli Lurs and Feyli Kurds the same ethnic group? Are they Kurds or Lurs?:) What I know so far is that they lived as a nomadic people without national aspiration. They are more a stateless people (people without nationality) than a stateless nation (nation without state).Vatasura (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vatasura, I put the question on the lrc wikipeda (that is in English and on my usertalkpage of course), because I obviously do not speak the language of thr Feyli Lurs and the Feyli Kurds. See what happens. I truly hope someone reacts. You might with to follow my userpage over there. Lotje (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lotje, this issue is more complicated than expected. Some users are already debating about Feyli Lurs and Feyli Kurds on Talk:Feyli Lurs. Yeah, we can only wait and hope for some results:)Vatasura (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, people starting debating, that is a good sign! Lotje (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil-related sentences[edit]

@Vatasura: Please review WP:OR policy and avoid original research. We can only summarize what is in one or more reliable published sources. The Languages of the World: An Introduction by Asya Pereltsvaig source states nothing about Dravidian state/nationalism, nor does the Minahan source conclude "the Tamil people are one of the largest stateless nation" (refer to this edit of yours). I have no issue summarizing Tamil or Dravidian or whoever in this "Stateless nation" article, but a reliable source must state so. @Ian.thomson: since you have interacted with @Vatasura, your WP:3O would be appreciated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it whould by WP:OR, if it claim Tamils are the largest stateless nation, but the edit claim Tamils are one of the largest stateless nation, this is a big diffrent. Comparing with the population of the other stateless nations, it is safe to say that Tamils have one of the largest population. This edit never claim that Dravidian are a nation or such things, it says only that Tamils belong to Dravidian linguistic group (a language family) who dont make up majority in any country in South Asia.
  • India (Hindi, Indo-Aryan)
  • Sri Lanka (Sinhala, Indo-Aryan)
  • Maladives (Dhivehi, Indo-Aryan)
  • Pakistan (Urdu, Indo-Aryan)
  • Bangladesh (Bengali, Indo-Aryan)
  • Nepal (Nepali, Indo-Aryan)
  • Buthan (Dzongkha, Tibeto-Burman)
  • Afganistan (Pashto, Iranian)
What is wrong to mention the truth, that there is no sovereign state in South Asia with a Dravidian speaking majority?
As already mentioned, it is only an example to show that stateness nations can also have a large population. Vatasura (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You ask, "What is wrong to mention the truth, that there is no sovereign state in South Asia with a Dravidian speaking majority?" Wikipedia is not the place for WP:ADVOCACY or WP:SOAP. Nor is this article a place for random factoids such as "Pluto is far far away" or "there is no sovereign state for women in South Asia" or "there is no sovereign state for people who are taller than 5 feet or less than 180 lbs in South Asia" or "there is no sovereign state for [pick one of zillion language or ethnic groups] in this or that country or continent". All this is WP:OR. Please also see WP:FORUM and WP:TALK. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparison is absurd and shows a certain degree of ignorance toward the subject.Vatasura (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baloch, Brahui and Santal people[edit]

@Vatasura: Why are you removing "the Baloch, the Brahui and the Santal are some of the stateless nations in South Asia", when it is clearly supported in the same source that discusses Tamil people? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vatasura: You removed a source published by Oxford University Press with this edit. Why? You continue to remove Baloch etc. that is sourced, and you added unsourced Andalusian people to the lead. Please explain. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) I welcome your contribution example with multiple stateless nation in a region, but I do not agree that you simply remove my example with population. Stateless Nation is not a page about Tamils, so it should not be written too much about Tamils. The Iberian nations with its regional nationalism would be more appropriate for this example than Brahui or Chantals who not focus so on nationalism.
2) The population of more than 70 million is mentioned in sources as the entire population of the Tamils, not only of Sri Lanka and India as you edit claims.
3) Your edit claim " one of the largest stateless nation dispersed over south India and Sri Lanka.
My edit claim they form one of the largest ethnic groups in South India, what sources says so.
4) Although it is an example for population of stateless Nation, I do not know what has moved you to write about Sri Lankan Civil. Anyway, I have not deleted it but only mentioned the reason why they fight.
Your edit, Tamil people in Sri Lanka led a violent separatist civil war between 1983 and 2009.
My edit, The suppression of the Tamil people[1] in Sri Lanka led to one of the longest and most violent seperatist conflict between 1983 and 2009.
I do not know why you remove "one of the longest" and "suppression of the Tamil people"
5) But your last edit is disturbing, as you call it Tamil Nadu vs Sri Lanka.
while a similar civil war was absent in India.[2]
It is a shame, to say that there was no civil war in Tamil Nadu as in Sri Lanka and compare two different situation.
I think it is already too much written for an example, not more topics about Tamils should be added. Thanks Vatasura (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Law and Society: Strategy for Public Choice, 2001 by Naorem Sanajaoba, p.178
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations p.412 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

@Vatasura: Let us take one item at a time. The Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations source clearly includes Brahui people, Chantal people, etc are stateless nations etc. Your "than Brahui or Chantals who not focus so on nationalism" does not make sense, reflects your personal views and not that of the source, so it is WP:OR. Why are you cherrypicking from that source? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch:You want Brahui, Santals and Balochis mentioned? No problem, So I've added it without removing my part. So you make a peaceful edit.Vatasura (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southerners[edit]

I have absolutely no idea how my addition to the Stateless nations page was not impartial. I personally have no ties to the neo-confederate movement whatsoever, don't even agree with their stances, and don't even live in America. All the things I posted there were quotes from other places.

I'd appreciate it if you took another look at what I added, and looked at the linked articles. In all honestly it seems like you are the one not being impartial here, as you removed my post simply because it goes against your own political views. Specifically, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Southerners and you will find that I copied the statement you called 'racist' directly from there. SMcM (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure--when all else fails blame the editor's political views. Take it back and maybe we can talk. BTW, the bit that's most obviously racist is the claim that they are somehow a "nation". Drmies (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a racist. I am not claiming them as a nation, I am literally quoting other articles. I apologise for assuming your politcal views, but you've got to understand I'm not American and so have no dog in this fight.

In terms of racism, the book I refereed to (https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Encyclopedia_of_the_Stateless_Nations_A.html?id=OLKKVXgEpkoC&redir_esc=y) isn't exactly a white supremacist book is it? SMcM (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That book is the definition of an unreliable source, the author lists himself as "a freelance writer and independent researcher", and no academic qualifications are available to verfity; Greenwood's editorial oversight also doesn't seem to inspire much confidence. I had to get the Featured Article status of Tamils removed because of this book, among other reasons. —SpacemanSpiff 14:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that book can be taken out of the equation then.

Still, there are other sources making similar claims. According to the Wikipedia article I linked (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Southerners), a number of academics consider Southerners to be an ethnic group. Now, either all the academics listed have questionable integrity and therefore this page needs to be revamped in such a way that makes clear such claims are ungrounded, or my entry on stateless nations is in fact valid; if Southerners are in fact arguably an ethnic group, and there is at least some autonomist/independence movement (which there is- see the league of the south), then this fits within what should be included in the list.

The other thing I would point out is this- one argument against Southerners being a stateless nation is the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans in the South would reject this, however, you would most likely find that the vast majority of African-Americans would reject the notion of an African-American nation also, and they are included on this list also. SMcM (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Wikipedia can not be used as a source for Wikipedia articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but that doesn't change the fact that articles on Wikipedia should be consistent. If we are completely sure that the academic consensus is that Southerners aren't an ethnic group, then such should be reflected here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Southerners. Right now I could borrow all the citations from that article and use that to justify re-adding Southerners as a stateless nation.

If we look at the criteria for being a stateless nation according to the article:

- "Stateless nation" is a political term for ethnic/national minority that does not possess its own state and is not the majority population in any nation state

- has no sovereign state of its own.

- does not form a majority in any sovereign state.

- one or more autonomist or secessionist movements are known to exist.

- not recognized by any UN members as a state (see also: partially recognized state).

The last four of those points are obviously true- there is no sovereign southern state, the white people of the southern united states do not make up the majority of the United States, and there is a secessionist movement (the league of the south the most prominent today, though still very small). The only point of contention here can be on whether or not southerners are an ethnic group/ nation.

Now, so far, I have been able to point out an article on this site that seems to add some legitimacy to the claim that Southerners are an ethnic group, and counter arguments have not been provided, other than the fact that America is majority white (which isn't relevant, as white people are a broad racial group, and not an ethnic group- if being the same skin colour as the majority of your country invalidates a claim to be a nation, then that undermines the legitimacy Scottish nationalism and most other European separatist movements also). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcM (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMcM (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And do any of the sources for White Southerners clearly mention "stateless nation"? If not then your interpretation of White Southerners is original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 'League of the South' and other separatists are the ones claiming the south to be a nation. I never claimed that article did anything other than support Southerners being an ethnic group- this was relevant as the argument that Vasura used was that Southerners as a stateless nation was invalid because the USA was predominately white- I was simply pointing out that them being white didn't necessarily prevent them being a distinct minority.

If Southerners are indeed an ethnic group (which I'm not saying they are necessarily), and some among them are pushing for them to be an independent nation, does that not constitute a claim of a stateless nation? SMcM (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should remove the criteria from the article as that allows us to define what a stateless nation is rather than use reliable sources, which we should do. Every claim in this article needs to be sourced to publications clearly meeting our criteria and I'd say more than one source. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh uh. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the source. — fortunavelut luna 18:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Southerners should not be included on a list of claimed stateless nations mostly on the basis that it is a fairly ridiculous claim, then surely African American people should likewise be removed from the list? Its not like starting up a new state for African Americans is remotely mainstream among either.

Can I also suggest that the 'White Southerners' page is put under review or edited or something along those lines, as as it is the page predominately gives examples of arguments supporting the view that southerners are an ethnic group, which doesn't seem to be in line with what people here are claiming is the academic consensus. SMcM (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southerners/Northerners is based mostly on ideological difference, like South Koreans and North Koreans. There is no ethnic groups like South Koreans or North Koreans, their ethnicity is Korean. A regional difference can exist among same ethnic group/nation, which leads to development of different local dialects and customs, but that make them not a different ethnic group. US is a country of migrants and the Americans are a multiethnical group. US people are defined like White Americans, Black Americans, Latino Americans, Native Americans. Seen in this way, the White Americans, form the majority of the nation.Vatasura (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • Vatasura You are basing your argument on what is "mainstream" rather than "what fits qualifications". African Americans are an ethnic group, with a separate history, culture and language from all other groups in their respective country, they hold power/majority in no states in the US. White southerners are not a separate ethnic group, but rather a separate political group. This does not allow them to be classified as "stateless nation" because they control most southern American states and a few other non southern states. African Americans, on the other hand, fit every qualification for stateless nation, however many southerners tend to feel they are a 'non people' that do not exist as anything more than a sub-category of a generalized 'american-but-not-southern' demographic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9680:D3E:1D95:DF58:2A08:2FC6 (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for a stateless nation[edit]

Below quotes from the 'Southerners' section:

We should remove the criteria from the article as that allows us to define what a stateless nation is rather than use reliable sources, which we should do. Every claim in this article needs to be sourced to publications clearly meeting our criteria and I'd say more than one source. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh uh. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the source. — fortunavelut luna 18:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do others agree that removing the current list of criteria would be a good idea? SMcM (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria helps to define Stateless nation and separate them from other movements. Most of the known stateless nations meet the criteria for the list. Without the criteria everyone will add or remove something, that he considers as a stateless nation or not, which will leads to unnecessary conflicts.Vatasura (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is that according to the current criteria Southerners do arguably qualify as a stateless nation- there are a number of academics (according to the Wikipedia page) that consider them to be an ethnic group (and that would clearly make them a minority ethnic group in the US), there is distinct Southern American dialect, and there is an active secessionist movement. If you disagree that they should be included here, then either the criteria needs to be refined, or criteria needs to be removed and replaced with a system where entries can only be added where reliable citation can be provided claiming them to be stateless nations. SMcM (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some better sources for the lead, bit I also think we need an RfC asking if this article should only include entities with academic sources, probably more th an one. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. If a certain stateless people have not been described as a "stateless nation" by at least one academic, it seem premature of Wikipedia to do so. Preferably, that reference should be dated before that ethnic group was included on this list to prevent citogenesis. Also, the Palestinians should probably be listed. ImTheIP (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KylieTastic: The Ahwazi Arabs are mentioned in the Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations by James Minahan. I therefore believe that they belong on the list. They are stateless in the same way the Palestinians were before the establishment of the State of Palestine (which perhaps isn't a state). Though it is really hard to differentiate between a "stateless nation" and and ethnic minority. ImTheIP (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ImTheIP and KylieTastic, Ahwazi Arabs are basically Arabs living in Iran. Arabs are not a stateless nation. Ahwazi Arabs can be added to List of active separatist movements in Asia. Claiming that Arabs are not a stateless nation, but Arabs living in Iran are a stateness nation, does not make sense. If Ahwazi Arabs are distinct from Arabs living in Iran, then it is a different story.Vatasura (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have two distinct sources that claim that they are a stateless nation. They very much belong on the list. ImTheIP (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is that the Hong Kong Chinese are a subgroup in the same way that Ahwazi Arabs are, and they are included here. Removing one but not the other seems inconsistent. SMcM (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is why arbitrary critera for inclusion and exclusion on this list is a misguided idea. Find a credible source that designates them as a stateless nation and we add them, otherwise we don't. ImTheIP (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to be bold. Now the criteria for the list is "Have a good source said they are stateless? If so add it, otherwise don't." ImTheIP (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold but expect to be reverted. Your choice of what constitutes 'stateless' will open a can of worms. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are supposed to discuss it. Not just revert and not discuss. ImTheIP (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity/Nationality[edit]

A lot of unnecessary confusion on this page is caused by the theoretically unwarranted attribution of nationhood to all ethnic groups. Ethnicity is one possible organizing principle for a nation, but not every ethnicity that exists possess a national consciousness. Unless an ethnic group sees itself as national and has articulated its interests in national terms, there is no reason to characterize it as a nation. 138.51.245.62 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the main problem is failure to rely on what the sources say. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stateless nation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on sources required for inclusion[edit]

The consensus is that inclusion of a group or state as a "stateless nation" should require at least three sources by different authors. There is no consensus how many should be academic though there is a clear consensus that at least one should be academic with Pincrete saying at least one source should be academic and The Gnome saying at least two sources should be academic.

There is no prejudice against creating a new RfC to discuss how many of the three sources should be academic.

Cunard (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should inclusion require at least 3 independent non-media sources by different authors? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC). Doug Weller talk 15:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • At least 3 seems fair. Although evaluation of sources is also necessary. Sometimes reliable sources are not really representing the solid fact. Capitals00 (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support requirement of 3 sources passing WP:IRS per above. Passing mentions should be swiftly rejected. My Lord (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Summoned by bot) Some inclusion criteria is needed, otherwise we'll have a list of simply all places in which someone expresses a wish for independence. Therefore 3 sources seems reasonable, ditto others comments about quality - the claims of advocates or passing mentions should be rejected. Pincrete (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: All three editors who responded to the RfC supported using three sources. But the RfC participants did not explicitly say they agreed that three "non-media sources" are required. Pinging Capitals00 (talk · contribs), My Lord (talk · contribs), and Pincrete (talk · contribs) to clarify whether you agree with the "non-media sources" part of the proposal.

    Cunard (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doug, do you need this to keep running? If you've got enough of an answer to be able to get back to normal editing, then feel free to pull the {{rfc}} out of this section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Academic sources preferred and partisan sources or passing mentions should be rejected, but I am ambiguous as to whether all 3 sources should be academic. Clearly at least one should be. Pincrete (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be in favor of at least 3 sources, with at least two of them being academic, just so that we minimize future conflicts and time wasting. -The Gnome (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WhatamIdoing: I guess I'll pull it now. Ah, I'm not sure how to do that, I can't close my own RfC! Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course you can, if you don't think it'll cause drama (and I fully trust your judgment on that point). See the very first item in WP:RFCEND. RFCs aren't supposed to be the highlight of Wikipedia's bureaucratic tendencies; it's just an advertising mechanism for normal talk-page discussions. I'm pulling the tag for you (that's all you really need to do), but you could have done it "legally". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @WhatamIdoing: it's always amazing how much I still don't know after so many years. I hadn't thought of just withdrawing it, I always think of RfCs being closed with a closure statement, which of course I couldn't do. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Languages[edit]

Some clarification as to the criteria (and order) of languages seems necessary. The most blatant example is Cornish, Cornish language, and Cornish dialect (a regional variant of English) are listed. Of the 534,000 population of Cornwall, "Cornwall Council estimated in 2015 that there were 300–400 fluent speakers who used the language regularly, with 5,000 people having a basic conversational ability in the language" - ie the vast majority of the population speak English, with an unknown number of those speaking dialected English to a greater or lesser extent.

A similar situation pertains to Sc + Wales, whilst Wales probably has the strongest language revival movement - Welsh is still the minority language there (highest estimates of those able to speak is under 25%). Since language is often an important component of seperatist aspirations, I have no objection to the language parameter being used to record that there IS a distinct language, however it should be made clear what criteria for inclusion (and ordering) is - is it simply what the distinct language claim is, or the actual language used predominantly.

I'm not competent to assess the ordering or inclusion for non-UK groups. Pincrete (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copts, among others[edit]

Surely the Copts must be included in this list? There is a Coptic nationalist and separatist movement far larger than many already on this list (larger than Occitania, Cornwall or Orkney and Shetland among others). Other groups which should be added are the Balinese, Balawaristan (there's the Balawaristan National Front), Padania or other northern Italian separatist movements such as Veneto because frankly if we include places like Occitania (arguably part of the French/Catalan nation), Moravian (part of the Czech nation), Kashubian or Silesian (part of the Polish nation) then we must include the north Italian identity). The Roma are a stateless nation, is there any definition of stateless nation which includes that there must be a movement for a homeland? Statelessness is not determined by desire for a state, surely?

This article also includes nations with no strong separatist tendencies. As far as I'm aware, there is not Yakut separatist movement apart for an abortive attempt at the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The article mentions the Nagas and the Bodos but fails to include Tripura (which had a similar movement for independence) or other Indian nations such as the Malayalam, Telugus or the Odiya. Do they not fit the criteria for nations? This article already makes the claim that movements for more internal autonomy or historical agitations can be considered so then surely we can include the Gujaratis as well.

Africa has many stateless nations not represented. The Fur people in Darfur, the Matabele, the Hausa especially. Where are the Tauregs? They are some of the most vocal agitators for a homeland. The Azawad movement is much larger than places such as Moravia or Occitania. This article has some seriously glaring omissions. --2A02:C7D:6A12:AE00:F42E:3641:7F20:4422 (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then edit it. You need sources meeting WP:RS, preferably 3. Journals, academic publications, etc. 12:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Forgotten European Stateless Nations[edit]

There is a large number of Stateless Nations that I propose can be added based on these two books, both of which have many sources within them to back up each entry.

(https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OLKKVXgEpkoC&lpg=PP1&dq=stateless%20nations&pg=PR5#v=onepage&q=stateless%20nations&f=false) and (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NwvoM-ZFoAgC&pg=PA1&dq=abazin+nation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWh4DQzdvcAhWwx4UKHWP-B-EQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=abazin%20nation&f=false)


These are the first five additions I would propose. If those two sources are not enough then I can send more to back up these peoples being called 'Stateless nations'.

Abkhazians

Abazins

Gagauz people

Kalmyks

Cantabrian people

Sikhs[edit]

The Sikhs are a people comprising of numerous smaller ethnic groups, but to say that means Sikhs are just the adherents of Sikhism and therefore can not be considered to constitute a 'nation' is not correct in my view- that's like saying the Jews of Israel are not a nation because Judaism is a religion and they have various different ethnic backgrounds. It is possible for an 'ethnic group' to consist of smaller sub-groups. The Sikh diaspora is also largely regarded as one ethnic group in the countries they have spread to. The existence of a significant Sikh Nationalist movement evidences that there are many proponents of them being united by a shared identity more than just being adherents of the same religion- yes that is subjective and you can disagree with their claim, but the point of this list is that these are claims of stateless nations- you can disagree, but that shouldn't disqualify them. In truth this whole list ought the be scrapped I would suggest given how contentious it can be for reasons like this, and how arbitrary the inclusion and exclusion of different groups on it is.SMcM (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism is a religion. This is a fact and not someone's opinion. our Sikhism article also says the same. Sikhs as a whole are not asking a seperate country. Thats exactly the reason why UNPO removed Khalistan from its list. If you believe the list ought to be scrapped, you may nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD, and let the community decide. FYI, someone had done this already and the discussion was closed as keep. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it certainly doesn't seem like you had patience to read through what I wrote. I never said Sikhism was not a religion (something so obvious that you clarifying that is clearly patronising)- just that Sikhs are also an ethno-religious group (and I copied several citations saying that from the ethno-religious groups page onto the entry in the list). Next you will be telling me Jews aren't an ethnic group also, as Judaism is a religion. Also, the statement `Sikhs as a whole are not asking a seperate country` doesn't really mean anything when you consider the groups that have made it onto this list- Bavarians and Occitan people are on this list, do you think the majority of them are calling for a separate state? The important thing is that there is an active movement that is somewhat notable, not whether a majority favour something. SMcM (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rewrite the accepted "facts", in case there is any doubt.
  1. Sikhism is a religion.
  2. This article is not titled as a "List of Ethnic groups" or "List of Ethno-religious groups"
  3. Sikhs (as a whole) are not asking for Khalistan.
  4. Khalistan "movement" petered out in the 1990s after it lost the popular support. This has also been reiterated in a recent WP:RFC
Since it is not an active movement, it does not meet the criteria for inclusion here. you are free to disagree with me, but you cannot edit war the content back into the article without consensus. I will have to report you for edit warring if you re-add the content once again. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Let me rewrite the accepted "facts", in case there is any doubt." Oh, please. I never denied it was a religion. And you either know that and decide to tell me that multiple times anyway, or didn't read my last post properly (which seems very likely). The relevance of it being an ethno-religious group is that you said this was not the case without backing yourself up at all (also, previously being an ethnic group was criteria on this list I remember- had not noticed that was changed).
And again, there is zero substance to your 'Sikhs are not asking for Khalistan'- neither are half of the groups on this list- for instance Rhindelanders, Bavarians, Breton people, Alsations, Frisians, Silesians, Moravians, Karelians or Sorbs. Half of those probably have a less active separatist movement than the Khalistan movement if they have one at all. If that is the reason you deleted it from the list, I presume you wouldn't criticise me if I delete all of those from the list? And 'As a whole' is very conveniently vague anyway- even in the case of Scotland and Quebec which have notable independence movements, they have not managed to garner an actual majority in independence referendums. I think your reasoning about declined movements also ignores that independence movements may be suppressed- through a mix of making them a minority in their own homeland and restricting their right to speech China has crushed the Tibetan independence movement. Quite possibly soon that will be quiet enough you would deem it unworthy of inclusion.
And a simple google search will reveal that the Khalistan movement is not a completely defunct movement as you imply. Also I don't frankly see why you are less guilty of an edit war here than me. You just respond to me with very poor reasoning and then delete the entry every time- you don't engage in debate in good faith at all, each time you assume extremely basic misunderstandings like me thinking Sikhism is not a religion. I have a feeling that if you respond again it will just be re-iterating the same points and not addressing anything else.SMcM (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement#Present_situation SMcM (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every case should be discussed on its own merit. you are right I wont criticize you, Please go ahead and remove all these instances if you feel they dont deserve to be listed here. Since I am not aware of those cases, I will not be opposing your deletions, but if your removal is not appropriate, someone will oppose it. If no one objects, its all peachy. Khalistan movement has petered out. this is not my opinion but academically accepted and reliably sourced fact. Pakistan's ISI is trying to revive it but so far could only manage minor crimes and murder plots. Those things are discussed in the Khalistan page. but its inclusion here is completely unjustified for the reasons I have listed above. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

anti-Flanders bias[edit]

this mediocre list does so poorly. There are plenty of potential stateless nations that could have been added, but . instead do not get an entry because of the questionable criteria. These criteria seem to restrict "nations that do not form a majority of the state" -> who decided to put this criteria here? Take it from me, this restrictive and in my opinion stupid because it bars Flanders from making the list. At the same time while the other half of Belgium, Wallonia is on the list. But, Belgium in itself consists of 3 integral parts. Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels. That's 3 potential stateless nations on this stateless nation wiki list. But, Flanders, which has 54% of the population makes barely a majority of the nation. and furthermore it's disproportionally represented in the federal parliament with 40% of the seats. so we Flemings form a minority in our own government. again, this list is done so poorly and contains an anti-Flanders bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomaatje12 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Romani People[edit]

Why are the Roma not included here? We are a stateless people and we number in the tens of millions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people Weasel5i2 (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see the requirement of a known secessionist or autonomist type movement. I'll ask my father if any such things exist. Weasel5i2 (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is : Romanistan 96.22.228.193 (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lock article[edit]

There seems to be a lot of nationalistic motivated removal going on here. For example the Tamils are deleted over and over again. And other nationalities are deleted, because people don't "feel" that they are stateless. By that logic we should delete 90% of the groups mentioned here. This isn't about whether you "feel" that they are stateless or whether it is "mainstream", but about whether those groups of people claim to be stateless. Those are two very different definitions.

So, to stop any further deletion especially from random IP addresses, I suggest that we lock this article. MrUnoDosTres (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are still very much active and random IP addresses are actually trying to stop them (and being punished for it) when accounts do these disruptive clearly nationalistic removals (patterns emerging quickly) of sourced passages of texts. The whole point of the page is to catalogize these movements, fringe or otherwise, as long as they have sources, regardless of if one agree with them all. Can we do something so as to if you feel like removing a sourced addition to the page that didn't have pages for all columns of the template, you need consensus on the talk page beforehand? 142.170.60.247 (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you attribute the edits you disagree with to "disruptive clearly nationalistic removals", then all the discussions here are meaningless. Discussions will get nowhere if you continue to believe that the other person is acting out of nationalistic urge rather than rational discussion.
There is no any sentences in the article mentions that "these movements, fringe or otherwise, as long as they have sources, regardless of if one agree with them all" should be added to this article. In fact, any information added to Wikipedia must be of sufficient notability. It is obviously absurd to forcibly create a nation with a population of 100 million (such as so-called "Cantonese nation") because a few hundred or a thousand people identify with this concept.--射命丸 (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few hundred or a thousand people identify with this concept? So it exists so it must be here. The information is of sufficient notability for it currently has pages about it. The same way an Irish nation would have been here on a 1885 Wikipedia even if it would have been a small proportion at the time, doesn't make it less relevant. 142.170.60.247 (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Minahan's books as sources and references[edit]

The list of stateless nations are always referred to James Minahan books: Nations without States: A Historical Dictionary of Contemporary National Movements, One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups and Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World. Those books they contradict each other, with errors deriving from the lack of knowledge of history and culture   of the so-called nations, those that describe are not nations perceived by the majority of those who live there or by others but only by what Minahan thinks. There would be many things to say like the fact that the concept of nation is different for each language,in English it is extremely relative. I think the list of stateless nations should include the so-called nations with strong separatist movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TizStriz (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TizStriz: Thanks for your WP:BOLD edits to this page, but I do think they require some prior discussion and therefore reverted them. I do understand your disagreement with the inclusion of some of the entries in the list, but I don't really understand what were the criteria for deleting selectively some of the European nations that were previously included. Sure, Minahan's books contain many inaccuracies and factual errors but there are many more external sources supporting the inclusion of e.g. Galicians or Flemish people. Also, I don't think that is there some specific threshold to define when a nationalist/autonomist movement is strong enough to be considered important, and even if that was the case I don't believe that it makes sense e.g. keeping the Bavarians, the Occitans and the Sami people, but not the Alsatians, the Silesians or the Sorbs, claiming that the former have stronger autonomist movements than the latter (which is not the case), or for example what makes the Cornish more important than the Manx among the Celtic nations. I think that the only entries that should be removed are the ones that refer to historic nationalist/autonomist concepts that are not anymore active and relevant today, such as the Rhinelanders, or the Swabians. --Argean (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I agree with TizStriz' changes. If there are no solid sources that back up the claim of "stateless nation" then that minority should be deleted from this page which needs to be heavily pruned. ImTheIP (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've reinstated TizStriz' changes. I think proper sources need to be located before the content that was deleted is returned to this page.ImTheIP (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ImTheIP + TizStriz You realise that the articles they link to are heavily referenced? Also calling Flemish Dutch, Alsatians Germans or Manx not independent peoples is ignorant at best if not outright highly insulting. All those inclusions met the criteria and had links to independence or autonomist movements Abcmaxx (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Independent people is not the same thing as stateless nation. The claim of stateless nation need to be adequately sourced and sourced on this Wikipedia page. None of the entries TizStriz removed had such sources. ImTheIP (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To give you a specific example, Alsatians. The first two references are links to two minor parties in Alsace. They strive for greater autonomy for Alsace. No clam of Alsatians being a "stateless people" is made. The other three references are German books about the short-lived post-war idea of setting up a separate state in Alsace. No clam of Alsatians being a "stateless people" is made. ImTheIP (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ImTheIP: If you read carefully on the top the list you will see the inclusion criteria, which state that among others one or more autonomist or secessionist movements are known to exist. There is nowhere mention that the exact string of words "stateless nation" must be included in the source. As Abcmaxx already explained to you, the fact that there are at least 2 autonomist parties in Alsace is enough to have Alsatians included in the list, and all the entries you removed fulfill the criteria because there are sources that prove that are active autonomist or seccessionists movements and parties, no matter if they are small. So you are removing heavily sourced entries because you don't like the definition or you disagree with the sources? That doesn't make sense to me and I find it highly biased approach. --Argean (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the whole page carefully and I have complained about the arbitrariness of the inclusion criteria before. Yes, the phrase "stateless nation" or an equivalent claim must exist in one or more scholarly sources or the entry doesn't belong on the list. Wikipedians shouldn't themselves decide what is and what isn't a stateless nation because that is original research and is strictly forbidden by WP:OR.
The fact that there is a far-right party in Alsace striving for greater autonomy might be enough to add it to the List of active separatist movements in Europe article, but not to this article. If a secessionist movement were the only inclusion criteria then Southerners, Cascadians (Cascadia (independence movement)) and Californias (Yes California) should be listed too. I think that you and Abcmaxx should read the nation article. It is not the same thing as an ethnic group, minority or people.ImTheIP (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that this question has already been more or less settled by a prior RfC, Talk:Stateless nation#RfC_on_sources_required_for_inclusion ImTheIP (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the phrase "stateless nation" or an equivalent claim must exist in one or more scholarly sources or the entry doesn't belong on the list. That reads to me a personal arbitrary conclusion that is not supported by the content of the page. If a secessionist movement were the only inclusion criteria then Southerners, Cascadians, and Californias should be listed too. Could be or couldn't be - depends on if they are part or not of another nation, since another criteria is (the entry is) not a subgroup of a nation. You're basically claiming that although Alsatians, Flemish, etc, have autonomist or seccesionist movements they are part of another nation. That sounds very biased to me. I think that you and Abcmaxx should read the nation article. I have as I have read many academic sources and books about nation-building and European history - that's completely irrelevant though. I see now that this question has already been more or less settled by a prior RfC, Talk:Stateless nation#RfC_on_sources_required_for_inclusion No it hasn't, this is more or less about what kind of sources are required (academic or not), not about the content of the sources.
I have complained about the arbitrariness of the inclusion criteria before. If you don't like or you disagree with the inclusion criteria you can always start a new RfC. It is obvious that yours and TizStriz's WP:BOLD edits do not have consensus and therefore cannot be accepted before you manage to get community consensus for them. --Argean (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abcmaxx I completely reject your assumption that I am ignorant, the real ignorant here is Minahan with her books, written a short distance from each other and which often contradict or report illogical things. In the book Nations without States he states that Trieste is a Friulian city, if you say this to a Triestine he considers it an insult. In the entry on this page about the Flemish people mention the possibility that they join the Netherlands, historically Flanders were part of the Low Countries, culturally the Flemings are similar to the Dutch. The Alsacians are culturally and ethnically German but have undergone a strong French influence. the Walloons as an identity exist only in Belgium as a counterpart to the Flemings, historically Belgium did not exist until 1830 and Belgian nationalists like Leon degrelle proposed to annex the north of France and the former territory of the kingdom of Burgundy to recreate it as a state. the inhabitants of the Isle of Man are British like the inhabitants of the Falklands, the manx independence movement is more of a radical ideological movement than a national liberation movement.TizStriz (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Indigenous nations of Australia and the Americas[edit]

Currently some large Indigenous nations such as the Inuit, Navajo, and Mapuche are listed separately while all Aborignal Australians are all lumped together. Including thousands of Indigenous Nations in the list doesn't seem practical so I suggest three ways to consistently group the Indigenous nations of these continents

NuclearElevator (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The deciding factor is sources. If there are reputable sources that claim those peoples are stateless nations then they should be included. Otherwise not. ImTheIP (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about listing Alsatians as a Stateless Nation[edit]

Should Alsatians (people from Alsace) be listed as a "stateless nation?" ImTheIP (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • No: Alsatians are not described as a "stateless nation", "nation without a state" or anything equivalent in any source. Listing Alsatians as a "stateless nation" is WP:OR (there's even a source that explicity claims that Alsatians are not a stateless nation.[1]). That there's one small, regional party striving for autonomy is not the same thing (because then we'd have to list Californians and Southerners, among many others). Note that Alsatians are far from the only people mistakenly identified as a stateless nation and a low-intensity edit war has been ongoing for years (see previous rfc). But we'll start with Alsatians - can they be removed, it will hopefully be easier to remove other incorrect entries too.ImTheIP (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ J. Friend (15 May 2012). Stateless Nations: Western European Regional Nationalisms and the Old Nations. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 137–. ISBN 978-1-137-00820-6.
  • Yes: The history of the creation of a distinct Alsatian identity is well accepted among scholars and goes as far as being described as a seperate national identity, an amalgamation of French and German identities in this historically rich European border region [1] [2]. The claim that Alsatians are a seperate nation is still current, although a minority even among Alsatians themselves, as stated by regional autonomist parties [3], or independent sources [4] [5]. According to the criteria set in page Alsatians should obviously be included in the list, since 1) they have no sovereign state of (their) own 2) they do not form a majority in any sovereign state., 3) one or more autonomist or secessionist movements are known to exist. 4) they are not recognized by any UN members as a state, and they are 5) not a subgroup of a nation (Bengali Hindus, Mexican American), but have a distinct identity, claimed by several sources that constitutes a seperate nation. Even if the exact string of words "Stateless Nation" is requested by other users, although apparently not required, this condition is also satisfied since the following source explicitly lists Alsatians as a stateless nation. [6]. The exact same rationale applies for most if not all European entries of the list and I'm happy to provide arguments for that if required (I haven't done significant amount of research for the non-European ones). It seems that some people around here are too eager to rationalize identities according to their personal beliefs, which is very sad indeed. --Argean (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Klein, Detmar (6 December 2006). "Battleground of Cultures: «Politics of Identities» and the National Question in Alsace under German Imperial Rule (1870-1914)". Revue d'Alsace. 132: 503–509. doi:10.4000/alsace.1565.
  2. ^ Carroll, Alison (27 January 2010). "Socialism and National Identity in Alsace from Reichsland to République, 1890-1921". European History Quarterly. 40 (1): 57–78. doi:10.1177/0265691409353255.
  3. ^ "Unser Land principes". L'Alsace forme en fait une nation
  4. ^ "THE EMERGENCE OF A DEMOCRATIC RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION IN EUROPE" (PDF). Alsace has developed a large scale European ambition within which it has effectively become an intimate nation
  5. ^ "L'ALSACE EST UNE NATION… PAR LA LITTÉRATURE". L'Alsace est donc une nation ? Oui, une petite.
  6. ^ Mikael Bodlore-Penlaez (2011). Atlas of Stateless Nations in Europe: Minority Peoples in Search of Recognition. Y Lolfa Cyf. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-84771-379-7.
The question for this rfc is whether Alsatians should be listed as a stateless nation, given the sources presented when the rfc was created. Adding "new evidence" after the rfc has already been created, makes the rfc hard to follow.
Though you are misrepresenting most of the sources you are citing. Detmar's phd thesis, Carrol's article and Schmitt's first article discusses Alsace's history, focusing on the German Empire years. They have nothing to do with stateless nations. The party program of the far-right Unser Land party is clearly not a reputable source - every separatist movement in existence claims it is a "stateless nation" - that's the whole point! Jean-Paul Sorg's blog post is some random musings.
I'm not familiar with Bodlore-Penlaez's "Atlas," (maybe you can tell me what is on page 13 which you cite?) but apparently he is a cartographer and this book is highly controversial. He runs a website where he pushes for the idea that Europe is filled with "stateless nations" yearning for sovereignty. He's the textbook example of WP:FRINGE.
Schmitt's second article is the only scholarly work that claims that an Alsatian nationality exists and its claim is quite weak: "Alsace cannot be content with simply being a small region. In counteracting the French prohibition of its national status, Alsace has developed a large scale European ambition within which it has effectively become an intimate nation." ImTheIP (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously the one who started adding new sources was you and not me, so I do not accept the accusation. It seems that no sources are good enough for you, although it's very clear that my argument is based on the history of the creation of the concept of a distinct Alsatian identity (thus the historical references), followed by modern interpretations of the concept of a seperate Alsatian national identity, regardless if the approach is political (Unser Land manifest), cultural (Sorg), or academic (Schmitt). That's simply the definition of nation-building represented throughout history - stateless nations are not created by parthenogenesis.
You can find page 13 of Bodlore-Penlaez's atlas on Amazon (that's why I cited it) [7] - there is no full free preview of the rest of the book. I don't want to take a position on whether his work is fringe or not, because this is rather a question of political debate, since his claims are at least supported by facts - unlike Minahan's books that are full of factual mistakes and unsourced claims.
We could start a long conversation on the origins and the definition of nation, because we clearly have different opinions on that and this is where our disagreement arises from, but this is not the time and place to do so. I like to cite though Council of Europe's approach on the concept of “nation” because it provides a simple and plain explanation on why people might have different perceptions of the term: in some Council of Europe member states, the concept of “nation” is used to indicate citizenship, which is a legal link (relation) between a state and an individual, irrespective of the latter’s ethno-cultural origin, while in some other member states the same term is used in order to indicate an organic community speaking a certain language and characterised by a set of similar cultural and historic traditions, by similar perceptions of its past, similar aspirations for its present and similar visions of its future. Since Alsatians are apparently stateless, and according to various sources a nation, even cited explicitly as a stateless nation by at least 2 authors (although I prefer to ignore Minahan), and claims of further autonomy are still present today, on what basis they should be excluded from the list according to you? --Argean (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "If you don't like or you disagree with the inclusion criteria you can always start a new RfC," thus signalling that the debate had reached an impasse. Had I known that you had more sources I would have challenged them before starting this rfc.
The sources have to be good enough for Wikipedia. On page 13 there is a list of peoples the author has divided into Stateless nations, Nomadic people, National minorities, Native people, and "People with a strong identity." There's no explanation given for how he, for example, has distinguished between stateless nations and people with merely a "strong identity." There's only a link to his own website, eurominority.eu. It's shoddy and not good enough for sourcing controversial claims. Especially not since the claim is directly contradicted by Julius W. Friend; "None of the areas in Frace where the above languages [Alsatian] are or were spoken can even remotely be considered a nation without a state."
No, there's no need to debate the meaning of the word nation. Using sources to infer conclusions not explicitly stated violates WP:SYNTH. E.g the argument "this source says a nation is X and Alsatians are X and also clearly lack a state so Alsatians are a stateless nation" is forbidden. Reputable sources need to explicitly claim that Alsatians in particular are a stateless nation.ImTheIP (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "If you don't like or you disagree with the inclusion criteria you can always start a new RfC," thus signalling that the debate had reached an impasse. Indeed I have but I thought you wanted to challenge the criteria, not the inclusion of specific groups. That's a completely different RfC you have started and I'm adding sources to the debate according to the inclusion criteria for the specific group you are challenging its inclusion. Had you started an RfC for the inclusion criteria themselves as I suggested, then the conversation would be completely different.
The sources have to be good enough for Wikipedia. I'm well aware of WP:RS policy - there's nowhere any mention about a source being good enough. Every source has its own value (especially books and academic material, such as journal articles) and it cannot be dismissed except there is a clear consensus that the source is unreliable and therefore has been deprecated. Even Minahan's books haven't been added to that list of deprecated sources and trust me there was even a discussion about it at the noticeboard that led to nowhere. Your stance to support Julius Friend's opinion that Alsatians (along with Occitans, Bretons, Corsicans, Basque, Catalans and Flemish by the way) are not stateless nations but not Bodlore-Penlaez's opinion that they actually are, sounds very non-WP:NPOV to me. And I'm also quite impressed by your apparent selection bias, since according to the source you added in the RfC you should have proposed also that Occitans, Bretons, Corsicans, Basque, Catalans and Flemish should be removed from the list as well! What makes Julius Friend's opinion good enough for you, apart that he agrees with your opinion? And if that's the case why did you ignore the rest of the groups that he claims are NOT stateless nations?
Reputable sources need to explicitly claim that Alsatians in particular are a stateless nation. You need to define what a reputable source is for you according to Wikipedia policies please. I provided a source that explicitly does that but you dismissed it without sufficient explanation (I can add Minahan's books as well - they are still considered reliable for Wikipedia). I also have to repeat here how much impressed I am by your selection bias. You should be aware that the current literature on "Stateless nations" is quite sparse. Among the more than 90 entries currently in the list you won't find more than a dozen with any sources available using the exact phrase "Stateless nation" to describe them. Yet, you have selectively decided to remove a few of them and you have selected only one of them to include in the RfC. That seems to me a lot like a WP:POINT strategy to be completely honest. There's a set of inclusion criteria that have gained consensus and all current entries follow these criteria. You can't add your own criteria for just some or one of the included entries. If you have any constructive changes to propose make an RfC for the actual inclusion criteria, not for the inclusion of Alsatians in the list which is very well supported by the current criteria that were already decided by consensus! --Argean (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you write "I can add Minahan's books as well" when you previously wrote "I've been aware of his [Minahan's] so-called encyclopedias for some years and I've been impressed on how superficial and unscientific his work seems to be."
My point is that if a claim is not supported by sources then it should not be in Wikipedia. The claim "Alsatians are a stateless nation" is not sufficiently sourced. For a definition of what "sufficiently sourced" means in this context, see the rfc from 2018 which defined it as one to three academic sources. That rfc is essentially the only consensus to have emerged on this article. The inclusion critera you keep bringing up has been challenged for years and have no demonstrable consensus behind them. Even if they had, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE would trump then.
I suggest you trim your comment since this rfc is about Alsatians only (why is explained in my top comment). ImTheIP (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you write "I can add Minahan's books as well" when you previously wrote "I've been aware of his [Minahan's] so-called encyclopedias for some years and I've been impressed on how superficial and unscientific his work seems to be." Because my personal opinion doesn't mean anything if there is no community consensus to support it. If community deems that Minahan's books are reliable then they should be included regardless what I think about it. You seem to value your personal opinion above community consensus anyway.
My point is that if a claim is not supported by sources then it should not be in Wikipedia...The inclusion critera you keep bringing up has been challenged for years and have no demonstrable consensus behind them. Even if they had, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE would trump then. That means that the inclusion criteria are wrong - basically you claim that the whole article should be rewritten. Then I repeat once more: make an RfC about the inclusion criteria! Why do you avoid it?
For a definition of what "sufficiently sourced" means in this context, see the rfc from 2018 which defined it as one to three academic sources. I have provided at least one! Do you need more? The RfC you keep mentioning didn't determine the required number, so I guess one is enough.
I suggest you trim your comment since this rfc is about Alsatians only (why is explained in my top comment). I want to remind you that this is the talk page of Stateless nation, and not about Alsatians only so you can't ignore that so conveniently. Based on your argument the whole page is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE. This RfC is a WP:POINTy campaign after all, isn't it? Your top comment basically says that you just want to remove Alsatians so you can use that as an excuse to remove the entries you don't like or agree with. Or you are obsessed with Alsatians! :)
Just get to the point, stop going around it because you failed to convince the community in the past. --Argean (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening to use Minahan's books despite being aware of their shoddiness because "the rules allows for it" is not editing in good fath. Thus, continuing the discussion with you seem pointless and I can only hope that level-headed editors will chime in. I've cited a historian that claims that Alsatians cant even remotely be considered a nation without a state, thus listing Alsatians based only on Minahan's and Bodlore-Penlaez's non-scholarly books would be insane. ImTheIP (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#Encyclopedias_of_James_B._Minahan for why Minahan's books are problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImTheIP (talk • contribs) 20:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link, ImTheIP. I've struck my comment for the time being. Apparently I was in the wrong assuming that a book by a reputable publisher and in the holdings of my local university library is reliable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No As of this point, there simply haven't been any reliable sources that said that they are a stateless nation. If that changes, feel free to ignore my !vote. Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The relatively small Alsace independence movement does exist, but there is a paucity of sources that call Alsace a nation that should have a state. < Atom (Anomalies) 23:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No "Independence movement" and "Stateless nation" are not same things. An entry for this article should be justifiable on its own merits. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a Nation it is not Stateless[edit]

A landless state or landless nation exists without land There is no such thing a a stateless state or a nationless nation or a nationless state or a stateless nation. These article may be blither generated to smoke screen the problem of Stateless People away. Wikipedia should refrain from participation in smokescreens if that is what this is. If none of the diplomatic dictionaries used by the united nations includes the term, it is not a "diplomatic term". Scottprovost (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Country and nation aren't the same thing. Even though many countries (namely nation-states) mixes the two. Same way there are multinational countries, like the United Kingdom or Austria-Hungary before that. 142.170.60.247 (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

@Robynthehode: Sources are needed that states that the groups I removed are "stateless nations." If sources can't be found, the groups must be removed. ImTheIP (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ImTheIP: I realise about the requirement for sources. The example that I included in my edit summary 'Cornish people' are 'a recognised national minority in the United Kingdom' (as stated in the Wikipedia article and supported by a reliable source). If Scottish and Welsh people are to be included in this article then so should the 'Cornish people'. I did a blanket revert because, as you may have missed this about the Cornish people, you may have missed supporting evidence for the others you removed. Of course, this may not be the case and also my interpretation for the Cornish people may be in error but I thought such edit removing multiple 'peoples' should at least be aired on the talk page. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scots have academic sources corroborating their designation as a stateless nation. In fact, Michal Keating, who coined the term "stateless nation," listed Scots along with Québecois and Catalans as three examples of stateless nations. Now one could argue that Cornish are like Scots so if Scots are a stateless nation then so are Cornish but such inferences count as WP:OR and are impermissible on Wikipedia. Cornish are of course not the only dubious entry on the list and many more ought to be removed (see discussion above). ImTheIP (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also understand about original research. My comparison was based on the articles of each peoples. Are you arguing that all entries must specifically have a source that calls them a 'stateless nation'? If so then only those entries that have that sort of source should remain. Its about clarity of definition. Robynthehode (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that all entries must specifically have a source that calls them a 'stateless nation'? Yes. We're a few editors that over the years piecemeal have been trying to clean up the list to conform to that criterion. ImTheIP (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ImTheIP: Thanks for the clarification. On current evidence I have no objection to your former edit and thanks for taking the time to come to the talk page to discuss this. As an editor I am always wary of substantial changes to articles and try my best to query the reasons for the changes. Thanks again. Robynthehode (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Complete lack of sources on the "Claims of stateless nations" section[edit]

Given that the consensus that has emerged from two previous RfCs [8], [9] is that all entries included in the article should have sources describing them as stateless nations, it's clear that the whole "Claims of stateless nations" section of the article is currently WP:OR given that there are no WP:RS at all for any single entry on the list. Thus, it's obvious that the whole section should be removed from the article, unless a sufficient number of sources is provided for every entry included in the list. --Argean (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few entries with sources, actually. Even with multiple ones, such as those for Sardinian, Catalan and Scottish peoples. For the other entries some sources could probably be found in the respective articles.--L2212 (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually just added most of those sources the other day. If the consensus is that the entries should be based on WP:RS that clearly refer them as Stateless Nations there is only a handful of entries that would fulfill the criteria, like the ones you mention, plus the Welsh, Basque, Galicians, Corsicans, Kurds, Palestinians, Tibetans and Quebecois, and maybe a couple of ethnic groups in Southeast Asia (like the Rohingyas). I don't think that any other of the entries actually fulfills the criteria and people have been randomly inserting and deleting entries over the years. If there are any sources available (which I highly doubt), excluding Minahan's and Penlaez's books that are repeatedly questioned about their WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY (please read discussions at the RfC above), they should be listed otherwise the entries should be removed. --Argean (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, yes. Content without sources should be deleted from Wikipedia. I believe most of the content was added to the list many years ago when the rules were not as strict. ImTheIP (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the content of the page has changed many times over the years and it's obvious that the main criterion for including or excluding an entry is the editors' personal beliefs and interpretations of the terms rather referring to any WP:RS whatsoever. I will remove all unsourced content by the end of the week, awaiting in the meantime for fellow editors to contribute in improving the quality of the page. --Argean (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aromanians[edit]

Should the Aromanians be included? LoneWolf1992 (user talk) 20:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an Aromanian country proposal or independence movement/nationalist movement seeking one with a page of its own on Wikipedia right now? 96.22.228.193 (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kongo People[edit]

Don’t Congo Kinshasa and Congo Brazzaville represent the Kongo people? Grillofrances (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just get rid of that dang list already[edit]

This list has been in constant battleground for years as people add and remove various peoples without any source or with sources that don't specifically use the term "stateless nation". It's a hotbed of original research and editor's personal opinions on what is and isn't a nation. Just look at this talk page.

But even if we cleaned up the list to get so that only includes nations/peoples verified as being specifically described as "stateless nations" by notable authors, I don't think the list's presence would really improve the article. Citations or not, this list is the equivalent of "a notable author[attribution needed] has described People Group X as a stateless nation[why?]" 80 times over, which is way worse than including examples in the body with additional information to actually help the reader understand the article (which is done plenty is this article already!).

So I suggest removing the list completely. An examples section with specifics of each case could maybe be added in future but with all the explanatory examples already in the body I think it would just be more WP:Example cruft. Either way, replacing the list with nothing would be still be way better than the mess we have now. NuclearElevator (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just add a caveat on top of the "See also" list that inclusion on the list does not imply the subjects are in fact stateless nations. For instance, the List of First Nations are nations with states/lands, while the overwhelming majority of the groups on List of unrecognized tribes in the United States are not states or Native American tribes; they are just trying to claim that identity. Yuchitown (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
I disagree. That part of the article is an important source of information, and also one of the few places on the internet where one can find such a complete list with sources. Having unsourced parts does not justify removing it completely, and if the sources are reputable there is no need to delete anything at all. The fact that's been a battleground for years is not a good reason either, otherwise we should probably delete most of Wikipedia. L2212 (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm getting at with bring up the contention is this: There's a million different places to draw the line and so it isn't especially helpful to say "An author drew the line here" without directly attributing the author or giving any other context about the claim, even if the author is qualified to make the claim.
Like I said, It'd support turning the list into a proper embedded text list (like the example in MOS:EMBED). But very reluctantly as I think the article already suffers from WP:example cruft, so even more examples of the term being applied wouldn't make the topic any more understandable.
And to be clear, this is a list of examples. The article already has a good source claiming that there's over 3000 nations in the world and that the overwhelming majority of them are stateless, so a complete list would be basically synonymous with a complete list of contemporary ethnic groups. NuclearElevator (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, you need sources that, say, Tibetans are actually a nation but don't have a state? Instead of deleting, maybe you'd take a minute or two and find such sources/ There are hundreds of them. — kashmīrī TALK 17:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly disagree with the whole argument that this sort of compilation doesn't have value, on the contrary, I think it is a neat idea to compile all independence movements (or nationalist movements where statehood is sometimes brought to the table) relating to stateless nations (as in nations that don't have nation-states) that have enough notoriety to get pages on Wikipedia in the first place (as much for the nationalist/independentist movement/country proposal as the nation concerned itself).
It doesn't mean at all it would be simply a copy of a list of contemporary ethnic groups (nation is not ethnicity for a reason, the Québécois and Scottish nations for instance are exemples of this, nations where the criteria for belonging is not from whom you are born from, but what cultural heritage you chose to have in your heart and seek to be a part of, contrary to the idea of ethnicism) because not all "ethnic groups" have people within them seeking to have a nation-state (and thus be relevant to this whole discussion to begin with). I haven't seen any Yaghans, Nenets or Ruthenians seek independence for instance. So this is more of a caricature than anything else. However I do understand the problem with an overfilled page. Why not have a separate page (one of these List pages linking various pages together with pictures and data) on it and have it be linked to this current page instead? Migrating it to a page of its own in other terms. A compilation of existing entries on Wikipedia, already meeting the Notoriety criteria to be important and added. What do you all think? 96.22.228.193 (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that this article is titled "Stateless nation", and not "Nation seeking to have a nation-state". If the Yaghans or the Nenets are nations and are stateless, then they belong here irrespective of whether they actively fight for a nation-state or not. — kashmīrī TALK 11:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but many people even they belong here will delete them, go see the case with the Tamil, Hongkonger and Cantonese nations down below. 142.170.60.247 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Métis[edit]

The Métis are more of a stateless nation than Quebec, being that Quebec has a state, and the former independant Red River Nation no longer exists. 70.69.140.126 (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When people talk about "stateless nations" they talk about nations not having independent sovereign states not states like those of the US for instance. 96.22.228.193 (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove all suggested "stateless nations" from talk page[edit]

There are far too many stateless nations to comprehensively list on this page; better use of a disclaimer in the section 'List of peoples that have been called stateless nations' and renaming of the section to "examples of stateless nations" would eliminate a lot of debate and conflict while also being of a more neutral point of view. Doing so would also allow a lot of debate on this talk page to be cleaned up. 70.69.140.126 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has value. Would the selection of certain ones but not others be as neutral as you think? Frankly, I think a separate List page would be a great idea. As if a page countaining all stateless nationalisms and independence movements having enough notoriety to warrant them a Wikipedia page in the first place. There are many List pages about all sort of subjects so that would be neat to have one for this subject. 96.22.228.193 (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany ?[edit]

Regarding peoples with Britonnic languages, Wales (in UK) is in the list, but Brittany (in France) is not, why ? There are articles in Wikipedia for autonomist and secessionist political movements, though albeit marginal, in Brittany : e.g. Emgann, Breton Democratic Union, Breton Party, Adsav. It may qualify as "stateless" has there are both a strong long-held cultural identity and a lack of recognition from the French government. 2A01:E0A:BC0:6F20:F86C:1024:A528:FB3C (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, give a source to it, links to these Wikipedia pages and go edit it in. 96.22.228.193 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of 'unionist nationalisms'?[edit]

'Not all ethnic groups claim to be a nation or aspire to be a separate state. Some of them see themselves as part of the multinational state and they believe that their interests are well represented in it. The favoring of a united single state is also associated with unionism' (Pakistani nationalism, Indian nationalism, Indonesian nationalism, Chinese nationalism, British nationalism, Spanish nationalism, Russian nationalism').'

I'm not sure what the list in parentheses is supposed to contain. Is it meant to be a list of nationalisms in states where the national identity is supra-ethnic and/or all or most citizens have an ethnic identity separate from the national one, but still identify with their state and prefer it to remain a single political entity? If so, at least Russian nationalism is an odd man out and can't be compared to British or Indian nationalism, since the overwhelming majority of Russian citizens are ethnic Russians, and Russian nationalism is hardly separable from the Russian ethnicity. I don't think it's common or normal for an ethnic Tatar or Chuvash to identify as a 'Russian nationalist' - they are just separate national minorities that happen to consist of citizens of the Russian state. I'm less familiar with the Spanish situation, but I thought the situation was similar there; Basques and Catalans aren't Spaniards and aren't expected to be 'Spanish nationalists', whereas Andalusians and Aragonese are just subvarieties of the larger Spaniard ethnic identity. 87.126.21.225 (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About Cantonese, Hongkongers and Macanese[edit]

1. There are only few sources defining them as nations. And none of these sources are by well-known authors. There are many more sources describing these three as branches of Han Chinese.

2. Guangdong independence movement and Macao independence movement are both pseudopropositions that have no real influence at all.

3. Conflicting with the content of Cantonese, Hongkongers, Macanese.

射命丸 (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. These are indeed sources, regardless of number, branches can be interprated as an identity forming the basis for a nation. To say otherwise would be to take a stand explicitely in favour of one side, when there are increasingly people questionning this vision of themselves.
2. is a personal opinion of yours. If they have a page here, they have passed the relevency test. The job of this page, like all things on Wikipedia, is to catalogize things and let you make your own mind about them.
3. I fail to see where it conflicts with the content, they are peoples distinct enough to have their own page.
4. In all cases, it's not a reason to wipe the floor clean and erase swathes of what you don't agree with. They've checked the criteria of having relevant pages able to fill all spots of the template. 142.170.60.247 (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. The number of sources represents the degree of recognition and authority of the viewpoints. If any cited information can be added to Wikipedia, then adding "Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China" to the page Taiwan is also okay. Because numerous books published in the People's Republic of China hold this view. However this is obviously not true.
2. This does not mean that the content has passed the relevant test. These contents were recently added by Kinginkingspark and caused controversy as soon as they were added into the page.
3. Several notable examples: Are the Hakkas in Guangdong considered Cantonese? Are Tewchow people in Guangdong considered Cantonese? The page Hongkongers defines Hongkongers as the resident of Hong Kong, so does a person who obtains Hong Kong status due to studying or working abroad belong to the so-called Hongkongers nation? What's more, the page mentions "Hong Kong is home to a number of people of different racial and ethnic origins" instead of defining all Hong Kong people as a nation.
4. I am not the one who deleted the content for no reason. After I started this topic on the discussion page, Kinginkingspark still did not reply and insisted on adding the contents instead of discussing here. Regardless, I welcome contributions to the discussion.----射命丸 (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 Has an obvious solution that has been discussed plenty in the guidelines of Wikipedia : if there are sources with conflicting viewpoints, you add parts for one and the other, in order of proportion, so that it encyclopedically gives a emotionally-detached presentation of the subject. Sources are everything here. If some say they are a stateless nation, it is a sourced view, and thus that page must categorize it for the interest of the subject. Do people have to agree with it? No. I don't agree with some here too, but that's not my place to remove them based on what I feel (especially not with big delete swathes that help no one), if sources say they are, I must respect that and anyone should too. Doesn't mean it is condoned or condemned, it simply is a fact some have those views and so we should talk about it.
2 Pages on wikipedia must be assumed to have passed the relevancy test. If they don't, they are deleted. So if they're not, they're relevant. That's how things go here. I don't agree with the choices always, but I must respect it and all should too, regardless of how we feel about them, else go make a deletion request for those pages. Until then, they are. With all due respect, you were pretty much the sole one who found controversy in them. Tons of users and IP adresses came and went and saw no problem in them by not touching it.
3 Some people inside a potential stateless nation think they do, others don't. Doesn't change the fact some people think Cantonese are a nation (see how it's not a question of if it is or not, just how far its limits go), your exemples are controversies about how far the definition of "Cantonese" goes, not about if the Cantonese nation exist or not. Nations by nature are about identity, and thus sociocultural, extending to all identifying with it, so yes, an Hongkonger abroad would, like a Kurd (some countries, like Turkey, deny their very existence as a nation by calling them mountain turks) or a Québécois also on the page, be a Hongkonger. There is a reason why it's an entry on multiple censuses. See "Cultural identity" part of the page and Opinion polling on Hong Kong identity. Hong Kong nationalism is a thing, sources say its a thing, quite explicitely (like "The internationalism of stateless nations : The case of Hong Kong" from Justin Chun-ting Ho). Cantonese nationalism is also a thing and where there is nationalism, there is a nation to be nationalistic about. So the argument doesn't work.
4 Yes you did, just not the same ones being erased from existence despite everything working in their favour to say "hey, some people say they are". That inclusion was made far before Kingpin arrived here, up to months before. There wasn't a consensus not to have it here either, to repeat number 2 point, you are pretty much the sole user to object to it here. No one help by just removing swathes of the page (would be the same thing if it were me), have the consensus to remove them, then remove it, not beforehand else it's calling for edit wars. --142.170.60.247 (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly there are two false arguments:
1. "Pages on wikipedia must be assumed to have passed the relevancy test" constitutes a circular argument with your previous discussion. According to your point, everything added to Wikipedia must be assumed to have passed the relevance test so nothing should be removed from Wikipedia.
2. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that I am the only one who has objections and I hope you will check the editing record again.
About the content of the article itself:
1. The first point you mentioned is correct in general articles, but this is a list article and only includes content that reaches consensus.
2. If a group of people do not consider themselves to belong to the Cantonese nation, then no one has any reason to count their population figures into the so-called Cantonese nation like Kinginkingspark did.
3. The survey you provided can only show the respondents' recognition of the identity of "Hongkonger" but does not represent their recognition of whether "Hongkonger" is a nation. Just like in Taiwan, the vast majority of people identify themselves as Taiwanese rather than Chinese, but this does not mean that they do not identify themselves as Han Chinese.
4. Citizens of Macau, when polled by the University of Hong Kong's Public Opinion Programme, identified significantly more strongly as "Chinese"[1][2][3][4], let alone people in Guangdong Province.
---- 射命丸 (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the point of the relevancy test is not a circular argument, since I explicitely said that this does NOT mean that nothing gets to be removed, just that it is relevant until a deletion request is successful, THEN it lose that relevency. IE it happens not when one just single-handly removes what they don't agree with, but out of a discussion that ended up with the conclusion it didn't reach enough relevency to warrant a page in the first place. So it is removed...in the right way and according to Wikipedia guidelines. You rearranged what I said while conveniantly ignoring what I also said to make it say what I didn't say. Just like my first point, conveniantly ignored.
Secondly, I fail to see the difference between a general article and a list article, especially on how the founding principles of Wikipedia suddenly don't apply if it's a list in a general article.
Thirdly, identities are not mutually exclusive. One can identify with being Hungarian and Turanian at the same time, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar, Danish and Scandinavian, Bavarian German and European (being a pro-EU Bavarian nationalist that doesn't believe in a Bavarian nation-state for exemple), Hawaiian and American. The "significantly more strongly" is irrelevant to the whole point : is it AN identity people identify with regardless. Even your own third point says so that your fourth point is not relevant to the discussion at hand. If there was a Macanese nationalism page or a Macanese independantism page (ie things stateless nations are at a stage of fighting for), or multiple sources indicating it is a stateless nation (so an exemple to categorize on a list listing exemples of peoples deemed stateless nations) it would be fitting here. There weren't, so on the Macao one, out of principle, I must agree with you, but the Hong Kong and Cantonese ones do, so I demand you please bring them back in for they check all the marks, marks that would be unchecked by the same logic if those pages weren't there. You can't be nationalistic if there is no potential nation to be nationalistic about, even if currently fringe like all nationalist movements and national conceptions were at some point without exception in history, does that make them illegitimate if Wikipedia existed back then? The Cantonese case is mainly in the diaspora due to the policies of the PRC that doesn't allow such discussions to even be made in Guangdong without crackdown. Regardless, there is a nation if there is nationalism, and it is recognized by the multiple sources accompanying these you deleted, so please revert those. To reiterate, you won on Macao, but any possible objective logic for why we have for the other members of the list (and again, it's not out of personal approval or lack thereof, it must be exterior to that) apply here as well, giving you Macao but giving us Cantonese and Hongkongers. They also respect the criteria given all above the talk page.
Fourthly, yes, I've checked and unless I missed something, you and one other user with chinese symbols who only contributed to this one page screaming "Cantonese isn't nation!" nothing added more, did. 142.170.60.247 (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's talk about the sources.
The sources cited for Cantonese, two books named 粵江流域人民史 and 泰族僮族粵族考, do not discuss the current Cantonese people, but the people who lived in Guangdong about 2000 years ago. These two books only use the word "Cantonese" and have nothing to do with Cantonese people today. There is also sentences like this in the book: "古百粤族與今日的僮族与泰族不過是名称上的區別。" ("The difference between the ancient Cantonese people and today's Zhuang and Dai people is just in name.") This is just disguised replacement of concept.
And among the 100 million people in Guangdong, the proportion of people who identify themselves as Chinese is even much higher than that of Macau. So Cantonese is even more should be removed from this list.
About Hongkonger, I admit that I confused the concepts of nation and Minzu. From the concept of nation, I think it does make sense for Hongkonger to exist in this list.--射命丸 (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Do Londoners as a nation need a state? Do we need to emphasize that Hongkongers, Macanese, and Cantonese need a state? Or are some people trying to create issues to encourage implementation in the real world - to promote the creation of so-called independent national states in a region? Are the above three concepts just 'the residents living there (whose existence is related to the larger national culture)', or is it a very unique 'nation' that can be completely separated from other parallel things like 'nation'? --Cwek (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current complexity of this issue lies in the fact that some real people or organizations try to whitewash the unique culture or lifestyle of a small number of residents living in that area, calling them an independent 'nation', shaping or exaggerating their differences with the up 'nation', thereby promoting the issue of real world: establishing an independent nation-state to separate it from its up nation-state. That is why there are issues that advocate support for "Hong Kong independence", "Macau independence", and even "Canton independence": the influence. --Cwek (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a London nationalism page? No. So it's not here. Non-argument. The rest of your argument goes the other way too, people removing relevant independance and nationalism movements to STOP implementation in the real world. The Hong Kong independence has IMMENSELY been covered during the 2018 protests. The position to explicitely erase for political gain their existence that an encyclopedic article on relevant subjects must talk about due to the nature is to explicitely take an immensely pro-CCP position on the question, violating all values of Wikipedia about being an encyclopedia documenting things that have existed while leaving users to make their own decisions. This is just pro-obscurantism at this poin t. 142.170.60.247 (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "港大民調︰澳門人國族身份認同明顯回升". 論盡媒體. 7 January 2016. Archived from the original on 25 May 2017. Retrieved 24 September 2017.
  2. ^ Rick Huisman (10 November 2016). "Why prosperous Macau does not follow Hong Kong's gamble for independence". The Perspective.
  3. ^ 李展鵬 (9 June 2017). "20年前，一場雨的預言──一個澳門人寫給香港的情書". 天下雜誌. Archived from the original on 24 September 2017. Retrieved 24 September 2017.
  4. ^ 甄樹基 (16 September 2017). "環球時報炮製"澳獨"標籤澳門反對派立法會候選人". 法國國際廣播電台. Archived from the original on 16 September 2017. Retrieved 22 September 2017.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stateless_nation&oldid=1217234735"