Misplaced Pages

Talk:List of sovereign states: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:46, 5 October 2022 editAxolotlsAreCool (talk | contribs)140 edits →Donetsk and Luhansk, one final time: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit Revision as of 18:14, 3 January 2025 edit undoUtopes (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers38,651 edits spacingNext edit →
(247 intermediate revisions by 92 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header|search=no}} {{Talk header|search=no}}
{{Notice|This list has a detailed ]. Please '''do not add new entries without prior discussion'''. Items that do not fit the set criteria, such as ], the ] and polities normally classified as ], ]s, ]s or ] will be removed.}}
{{Notice|This list has a detailed ]. Please '''do not change the categorizations in the table without prior discussion'''. Changes to the organization of the list of states that go against ] will be reverted. For more details on the organization criteria, please review ].}}
{{ArticleHistory {{ArticleHistory
|action1=FLC |action1=FLC
Line 33: Line 35:
|currentstatus=FFL |currentstatus=FFL
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=List|1=
{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}}
{{WikiProject Countries}}
{{Notice|This list has a detailed ]. Please '''do not add new entries without prior discussion'''. Items that do not fit the set criteria, such as ], the ] and polities normally classified as ], ]s, ]s or ] will be removed.}}
{{Notice|This list has a detailed ]. Please '''do not change the categorizations in the table without prior discussion'''. Changes to the organization of the list of states that go against ] will be reverted. For more details on the organization criteria, please review ].}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Countries |class=List|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Lists|class=List|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Lists|class=List|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=List|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject International relations |class=List|importance=High }} {{WikiProject International relations|importance=High}}
{{WP1.0 |v0.5=pass |v0.7=pass |class=list |importance=high |category=Geography |WPCD=yes }}
}} }}
{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 15 |counter = 16
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 53: Line 52:
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
}} }}
{{old move|date=7 February 2022|destination=List of countries|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1071413021#Requested move 7 February 2022}}

{{Archive box|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=1|units=month|index=/Archive index| {{Archive box|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=1|units=month|index=/Archive index|
* ], ], ], ] * ], ], ], ]
Line 76: Line 73:
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ]
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
Line 87: Line 85:
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=
}} }}
{{Old moves

| list =
* RM, List of sovereign states → List of countries, '''No consensus''', 2 November 2016, ]
* RM, List of sovereign states → List of countries, '''Not moved''', 7 February 2022, ]
| oldlist =
* RM, List of countries → List of sovereign states and dependent territories, '''No consensus''', 19 November 2008, ]
* RM, List of countries → List of sovereign states, '''Redirected''', 21 November 2008, ]
}}
__TOC__ __TOC__


== North and South Korea's names ==
==Note on Czechia oh sorry Czech Republic==
Do you think maybe that note should be updated as more and more places are using Czechia like I dunno the UN <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Of course the UN uses it, the UN will use whatever a country tells it to. It's quite a meaningless marker for common use. ] (]) 22:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

==Somaliland==
the note says it has no recognition from any other state but the foreign relations of Taiwan page says that Taiwan recognizes it. So which one is it? ] (]) 07:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

:There has not been convincing evidence that Taiwan has fully recognised Somaliland, instead they have kept it very ambiguous. ] (]) 08:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

::Nothing like that my friend, Taiwan has fully recognized Somaliland as a sovereign state. This is from the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China (Taiwan):

::

::

::You wouldn't want to offend Somalia with these maps without a proper reason. ] (]) 03:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

:::Please refer to the discussion at ], where this has already been raised. ] (]) 04:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

::::It seems to me that the consensus was to move Somaliland to "States recognised only by other non-UN member states". Isn't it? ] (]) 04:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:As far as I can tell, Somaliland only maintains unofficial diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Taiwan has gotten as close as it can to recognising Somaliland without actually going all the way. But the situation could very well change in the future. ] (]) 19:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

== Donetsk and Luhansk ==
There was an edit war on this today as some new editors and IPs tried to remove these and other entries inappropriately. But, given , I think it's worth being clear where we are. I'm going to put my understanding and see if you all agree.

As I understand it, as of ''today'', Donetsk and Luhansk belong on the list based on recognition by Russia, Syria and North Korea.

As of 3pm local time (UTC+3) ''tomorrow'', Putin intends to sign an order annexing both territories. From that point, it is probably safe to assume that all three countries will cease to recognise Donetsk and Luhansk as sovereign, because they will recognise them as part of Russia. The consequence for this article and for ] is that Donetsk and Luhansk entirely disappear. This becomes an ordinary sovereignty dispute, and we do not include ordinary sovereignty disputes unless a state's entire sovereignty is disputed, which will not be the case here. But this does not happen until tomorrow.

Any objections or things to add? ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 17:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

:Agreed, we don't need to wait around for Syrian or North Korean statements (although I hope there will be some nonetheless). If the two are no longer recognised by Russia, they no longer meet the criteria for this list. It would be nice for some confirmation about specific timing regarding legal effect, but I suspect that would be essentially academic and not worth spending time here on. ] (]) 17:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

::Yes, I'm curious if, for example, the occupation authorities in Kherson will declare independence first prior to annexation per the Crimea precedent. Would there be a need to list an ephemeral state on here? Was Crimea during its brief independence?] (]) 17:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:::Crimea did get on for its week of nominal recognition, but there would be no point listing something for an hour or so. ] (]) 17:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:::When Crimea was annexed, it remained technically independent under Russian law for as long as it did because the accession treaty annexing Crimea needed to be ratified by the Russian legislature, and thus remained on the list until it was under Russian law incorporated into Russia. The same precedent should apply in this situation for the Russian puppet states in Ukraine.] (]) 04:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

::::I have fairly serious doubts as to whether including these oblasts for a few hours when every reliable source made it clear that recognition was a temporary measure to facilitate annexation is within the spirit of policies such as ]. It's a bit like claiming Catalonia was independent for 8 seconds in 2017 - that being the time it took for Puigdement to get from one sentence to the next. I am similarly unconvinced that we did the right thing by including Crimea in 2014. But the question is now academic and I see no reason why we should not now agree to disagree. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 13:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::The inclusion criteria says that a state recognized by at least 1 UN state is to be included, "the right thing" has no bearing. Catalonia was not recognized by any UN member state, so that is not a meaningful example to follow. The Russian puppet states are not yet actually incorporated into Russia, the Duma has to ratify the treaty of accession, which may take a couple days. Until then, Russian recognition of their independence means that they be included in the list until such time as they are legally recognized by Russia as being part of Russia.] (]) 13:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

::::::Shall we start an RFC on this?

::::::"The right thing" is the right thing according to our policies and guidelines. Not only do policies and guidelines have bearing here, they are the only thing that has bearing here. If our inclusion criteria require us to do something that breaks policy, then either we must ] or we must change them.

::::::Given that this is a situation that every ] says is temporary, it seems to me that the logic from ] is just as valid here: we exclude {{tq|hose areas undergoing current civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession, regardless of temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria (e.g. by receiving recognition as state or legitimate government), where the conflict is still in its active phase, the situation is too rapidly changing and no relatively stable quasi-states have emerged yet.}} If we need to change our inclusion criteria to include such a clause, we should do so. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 13:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::<s>In this case, the matter is easier than it seems. Donetsk and Luhansk should be removed from this list. It is not necessary to wait for Syria and North Korea to make any declarations in this regard. The states themselves (DPR, LPR, Kherson territory and Zaporizhzhia territory) and their authorities consider that they are no longer independent states, but part of Russia. And obviously there is not going to be a statement from Syria stating that they condemn the Russian annexation and still see Donetsk and Luhansk as independent countries. ] (]) 13:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)</s><small>Blocked sock</small>
::::::::::::::Do you have a source that says that they no longer consider themselves independent?] (]) 14:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I mean, they just signed documents to that effect. And Vladimir Putin has claimed, in so many words, that the territories are Russian. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 14:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::But under Russian law, they are still recognized as independent states and sources clearly state that the annexation does not take effect until ratified by the Russian parliament. See here ] (]) 14:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::And I would object to the addition of that criterion to this page, since it is synthesis. Neither the constitutive theory or declarative theory of statehood require there to be peace for a state to be a state. Throughout history states have risen and fallen, and throughout history there have been states who have been at war for their entire existence.] (]) 13:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

::::::::It has never, at any stage in history, been the normal situation to accept entities as genuine sovereign states, when their sovereign existence is only recognised by a single other state as part of a legal fiction during an annexation process that even on paper takes no longer than a few days.

::::::::You claim that no one has objected to inclusion. That isn't true. I have objected to inclusion, and if you're saying I'm no-one, then that's a ]. Your version of the article, which does not have consensus, is biased in favour of a Russian legalistic point of view, failing to even acknowledge the annexation that every RS makes clear is the background to the recognition. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 14:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Insofar as your comments here above, you proposed changing the inclusion criteria, nor did not comment in the separate thread below handing Kherson, et al. At the time I made my edit comments, there was 100% support for inclusion in the thread below. As to the rest, what source says that? On the soveriegn states by year pages, states that were recognized or existed for extremely brief periods of time are routinely included.] (]) 14:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Are you seriously suggesting that I'm lying when I say I object to them being included? That I just removed them for the fun of it? ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 14:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Cripes, the Kremlin ''never'' considered them sovereign or independent states. Just stop humouring it with this song and dance. Just remove these fake republics from the list.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 05:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

: Thank you. I agree fully with that. Putin has decreet and anyone making this about "yes but the Duma had not ratified yet" is making a mockery and caricature out of this. The Duma is not all of a sudden going to have their own and different mind on this. The Ukrainian territories have no bearing on this list (anymore) if at all. It is a waste of time and energy to have this discussion about such a technicality. ] (]) 05:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
::But recognition is just that, a technicality, Pakistan does not recognize Armenia but Armenia still exists. The inclusion criteria have remained stable for years, if you want to propose that they be changed open an RFC. As of right now Donetsk, Luhansk, etc clearly meet the inclusion criteria of the page.] (]) 15:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:::@] - Nobody seriously thinks that Armenia doesn't exist. Pakistan's position on Armenia's sovereignty is very weird, and I'm not even sure that they themselves take themselves seriously on this position. Azerbaijan and Turkey, two of Armenia's main geopolitical rivals (aside from Russia and Iran), recognise the sovereignty of Armenia. Pakistan doesn't even have a horse in this race. Pakistan doesn't recognise Armenia in order to appease Azerbaijan, but Azerbaijan itself recognises Armenia... How does that make even a lick of sense? ] (]) 18:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

*I don't have much to add besides repeating what I said at ] and ]. We don't need to wait for the State Duma to rubberstamp it, just as we didn't wait for that before posting about the annexation at ITN. {{ping|XavierGreen}}, every single editor here & at ] has disagreed with you. If for no other reason, you should revert yourself for violating 1RR, but I can't see how you continue to deny that there is an apparent consensus. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 00:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

*Yes, I agree with most people above (except XavierGreen): they are no longer sovereign states. I would also argue they ''never'' were sovereign states, but this is now moot. ] (]) 00:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Both Donetsk and Luhansk should be removed from the list, they are no longer ''de facto'' states. Luhansk Oblast is ''de jure'' Ukrainian territory claimed and fully occupied by Russia. Donetsk Oblast is ''de jure'' Ukrainian territory claimed and partially occupied by Russia. Yes, I know these treaties have not been ratified, but it doesn't really matter, we all know that they will get ratified. ] (]) 04:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

* There is no rush and no reason we can't wait for more reporting on this. We aren't on a deadline. ] (]) 04:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
*:I'm not sure what there is to wait for. These territories are almost universally recognized as part of Ukraine. Russia has challenged that, but now recognizes them as part of Russia. Nobody recognizes them as independent states. They need to be removed. Delays are only going to cause confusion. ] (]) 13:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

== Kherson and Zaporizhzhia ==
Putin has signed two decrees each recognizing the independence of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia respectively, both effective immediately. While their "independence" is set to last for only one day, should they be included in the list of non-UN recognized states (since they meet the criteria) or is it not worth it? ] (]) 22:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:I just added them. They have been recognized, i added a source stating such. Interestingly enough, the Russiand decree recognizes the names of the "new countries" as Kherson Oblast and Zaporzizhzhia Oblast. An interesting question (likely soon moot) has now arisen, they have no official flags but they do have official coats of arms. Do we display the coats of arms in place of the flags like we do for medival states in battle infoboxes of military conflict articles?] (]) 04:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::They are flying the Russian flag over government buildings in those regions, so I'd use that. ] (]) 05:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:That just discredits the criteria. Russia occupied ''part'' of these regions, declared them “states” to be “annexed” the next day, so some Misplaced Pages editors decide to add then delete them from this list on Putin’s schedule? What a farce.
:Exercise common sense. This is a PR exercise by a violent, criminal government. Don’t humour it. Just remove these travesty “states.”&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 05:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
::Indeed, exercise common sense. The so called independence declaration was immediately followed by the annexation request, which precisely sets the meaning of that so called independence. The territories also never excercised independence. Adding them to the list until the Duma had formally ratified Putin's annexation decree is a form of falsifying history and the process happening.. a mockery and caricature of what is happening here. These territories have nothing to do with "independence". ] (]) 05:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
::I wouldn't have put the point in those terms, but I agree with the thrust of this. If our inclusion criteria require that we make such an obviously non-neutral listing, then our inclusion criteria must be changed. This article is not supposed to be a Russian propaganda piece, but right now it basically is. Hence the {{tl|npov}} banner at the top.

::I would also note that this demonstrates a major problem with the articles ] and ] - the latter of which still lists Crimea. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 07:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:::The criteria implicitly assume quite reasonably that states will behave according to a set of rules. If states play fast and loose with the rules, then the system breaks down and ours along with it. ] (]) 09:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
::::As I said above, I would suggest that the list of ] in the ] should really be adopted here as well. That explicitly excludes entities like these, by describing this specific situation. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 11:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
::The article specifically notes that "are recognised as a sovereign state by at least one UN member state" is enough to merit inclusion, and this was the precedent used to include Donetsk and Luhansk upon Putin recognition of them in February. We cannot remove Kherson and Zaporizhzhia without also changing our inclusion criteria, which can be done. ] (]) 18:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:Those 4 oblasts are now the same as Crimea and can't be included as (self-declared independent) states now, just as disputed territory. ] (]) 07:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
::The situation of these four independent territories is similar to the ] in the sense that it was established by another state and they don't even hide it in the ]. However, it has not been considered Armenian propaganda. ] (]) 10:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:::And remind the ] it was not just about annexation, but declaring independence and then annexing to Russia. ] (]) 10:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
::::Nobody takes the notion of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia independence seriously, considering that they apparently wanted to be annexed by Russia a day later. How meaningful is independence if it only lasts for one day? At least the Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR lasted for 7-8 years... That's a lot more significant. ] (]) 18:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Well no, because Artsakh has been ''de facto'' independent for over thirty years, and is included not because the Armenian government recognise it (they do not) but because independent scholars describe it as generally being acknowledged as meeting the standard of the declarative theory of statehood. That is a completely different situation. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 11:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
::::And why are Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic still on the list? Now when those selfdeclared countries do not consider themselves independent... previous recognition does not matter. ] (]) 21:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::Because they still consider themselves to be independent until their annexation treaties are ratified by the Russian parliament. The annexation does not take effect under Russian law until the ratificaiton occurs. See here ] (]) 22:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::There is no such thing as Russian law. Putin is the Law. They are now either a part of Russia or a part of Ukraine, the consensus seems to be the latter. ] (]) 00:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::They are formally disputed between Russia and Ukraine. We may have our views on which side's position is right and which is wrong, and to what degree, but the factual statement is there is a territorial dispute between Russia and Ukraine over these territories. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 07:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::One could say they are disputed ''territories'' not disputed ''states''. But even that would be a stretch because parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia (together with provincial capital of Zaporizhzhia) are controlled by Ukraine, and none of them is a state by Ukrainian constitution. ] (]) 15:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::So you think that an area isn't disputed if ''de facto'' control split between the two parties? The implication of that would be that you consider the front line to be the current legal border between Russia and Ukraine?

::::::::::No. Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia - both the Ukrainian-held areas and the Russian-held areas - are all disputed territory until either Russia or Ukraine withdraw their assertion that the territory is theirs. We might have a POV on who is legally and/or morally in the right of this, but that POV doesn't change the fact of the dispute. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 15:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::@] - I've identified a notable problem with the maps for Russia's territory. The boundaries that are shown for the newly-annexed regions encompass the official borders of the Ukrainian oblasts (Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk), even though Russia doesn't control all of the territory that it claims. By the way, the Misplaced Pages article for ] currently says that the entirety of these four oblasts is "claimed and controlled" by Russia, but that's not true as per what I just said. ] (]) 18:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::EDIT: Nevermind, someone changed it very recently to say that these territories are only claimed by Russia, in the Russia article. The problem with the maps still persists. We need to depict some sort of "line of control", even though the line is constantly shifting (which will require consistent updating by Misplaced Pages editors). ] (]) 18:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::That someone was @]. ] (]) 18:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::This article, quite deliberately, has no such map. If there is a problem on some other article, it needs to be fixed elsewhere. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 20:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::It was a territorial dispute of sorts and now it is a full fledged sovereignty dispute, Ukraine says it's theirs via territorial integrity/IL and Russia claiming it via an unrecognized annex (similar to Crimea). In the meantime there is an ongoing armed conflict/military occupation in those areas. So it is a mess when all is said and done. ] (]) 16:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::Is there a meaningful difference between "territorial dispute" and "sovereignty dispute"? Genuinely curious. ] (]) 18:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Also adding that there's no such thing as these territories. Everything about this is illegal. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 00:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::The law i was citing to there is Russian law. To be annexed to Russia under Russian law, the Duma needs to ratify the treaty. In the case of Crimea, Crimea was listed on this page until the Duma ratified the annexation treaty.] (]) 13:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::@] - Interestingly, the article about "]" on Misplaced Pages says that all annexations are illegal by default. The alternative is "]" (ceding, not to be confused with "cessation", stopping), which is regarded as legal. For example, the United Kingdom ceded Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China in 1999. This is regarded as a legal annexation of Hong Kong by China, because it was done under an international treaty with the United Kingdom. ] (]) 18:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::The article in question defines the word "annexation" very narrowly. There are a number of examples of cases where we commonly use the word "annexation" to refer to acts that are ostensibly legal, such as the US annexation of Texas. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 20:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::: The US annexation of Texas wasn't legal, though. The territory was taken (stolen) from Mexico by American settlers. Hawaii is a similar case. ] (]) 21:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::IDK, the ] says LPR is already annexed and thus not independent. ] (]) 12:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::Ultimately, it's a question of the pre-existing consensus being in place until changed. There clearly is not consensus here to add Kherson or Zaporizhzhia and it isn't immediately obvious that there is consensus to remove Donetsk and Luhansk (though the discussion has definitely tilted that direction since I was last here). Once a clear consensus is formed to remove Donetsk and Luhansk, they'll be removed (or to add Kherson and Zaporizhzhia), the article should be changed. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 07:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::@] - I would refrain from the comparison to Artsakh. Artsakh is more similar to Kosovo than it is to Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Maybe there's some similarity to Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR, since it is possible that some of the Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR residents genuinely desired independence (i.e. self-determination). However, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia never ostensibly demonstrated any desire for independence. They were simply occupied and annexed by Russia, with a brief interim period of farcical independence. ] (]) 18:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
::::] is a red herring. It is a collective right of peoples, i.e. nations, and no one is claiming that Donetsians or Kherson Oblastians are an ethnic group. Furthermore, self-determination is explicitly not a right of statehood or separatism against the UN Charter (which is why even Russian “allies” like Armenia, China, and Serbia refuse to go along with Putin on this).
::::And obviously, everything about this violates a huge list of human rights including the right to self-determination of the people affected. As they say about the fake referendums, it’s ridiculous to claim that Ukrainians voted for their own genocide.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 19:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::I believe that it is perfectly plausible for there to exist a "Donetskian nation" or even a "Khersonian nation" (as unlikely as it is). Obviously, the illegal referenda don't demonstrate the true extent of these so-called nations, but at the same time, the illegal referenda don't completely discredit these national identities either. ] (]) 19:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::As for Armenia, that country is not really friends with Russia. On paper, Armenia is a Russian ally, but really, Russia is only an ally of convenience for Armenia. Armenia is surrounded by enemies, namely Azerbaijan and Turkey. Armenia has decent relations with Russia and Iran, who they see as temporary allies against the Azeris and Turks. But the Russians and Iranians have historically been enemies of Armenia too, so they can't completely be trusted. Armenia's only friend that is directly adjacent to it is Georgia. Armenia also seems to have decent relations with some of the Central Asian countries. Armenia's closest friends are Greece, the Assyrians, the Lebanese Maronites, and apparently even Serbia. Armenia also has a good relationship with the Kurds in the present day, although the Kurds historically assisted Turkey with the Armenian Genocide. ] (]) 19:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::China and Serbia refuse to support Russia on this matter due to their own problems of secession. Specifically, Serbia is worried about the ], whereas China sees Taiwan as a "renegade province" and also has issues with Tibet and Uyghur (Xinjiang) separatism. Plus, supporting Russia is political suicide for China and Serbia. They don't have any interest in fighting (and losing) Russia's wars. ] (]) 20:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::This isn't the place for us to give our own personal analyses of the geopolitics. This is purely a question of whether Kherson and Zaporizhzhia (or Donetsk or Luhansk) meet our inclusion criteria. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 20:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:Not worth doing it, mate. They got annexed straight away. I think they don't even have a proper country name. Putin just called them the regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. ] (]) 04:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


Should the reference to Congo be changed to:
== Moving forward ==


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


Korea, Deomocratic People's Republic of
The problem here is ultimately, as ] correctly said, {{tq|The criteria implicitly assume quite reasonably that states will behave according to a set of rules. If states play fast and loose with the rules, then the system breaks down and ours along with it.}}


(machine translation) ] (]) 08:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, this precise situation has come up twice now, with Crimea in 2014, and with Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in 2022, so I think it's worth considering the implications in more detail.


:Those aren't the common names. They're almost universally referred to in English as North and South Korea. I do, however, think they should be changed to "Korea, North" and "Korea, South", in line with the Congos. ] (]) 11:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Options I thought of:
::I agree with you ] (]) 18:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
#We adopt the list of excluded entities from the ].
:It's not the same thing. South Korea is the area controlled by the Republic of Korea while North Korea is the area controlled by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Using the longer names gives credence to their respective claims, which is why reliable sources generally prefer North and South Korea. It's one country divided by competing governments.
#We change the definition we apply for the ], to state that recognition by a small minority of states should be insufficient for inclusion absent other factors.
:If and when they recognize each other, that will probably change as it did for Germany and China. Reliable sources also stopped referring to China as Mainland, Red or Communist China whe its current government was recognized. ] (]) 21:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
#We argue that the exclusion of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia was wrong and that we must include them and any similar situation in the future.
#We argue that the inclusion criteria as currently listed are irredeemably ] and that no better criteria are possible. Instead, this would become a redirect or dab page.


== New Section for "States partially recognized by the UN System" ==
Going through these in turn:


Hello. I'd like to propose changing this article to include a new category for States partially recognized by the UN System. It feels disingenuous to have widely-recognized states such as Kosovo, Niue, and the Cook Islands, along with Taiwan (one of the largest diplomatic networks in the world) and the SADR (recognized national liberation movement), lumped together with other separatist states that maintain limited support (Russian-occupied territories, Turkish-occupied Cyprus, Somaliland). I've proposed an edit which I will recreate below. Note that while the WTO is not a UN Specialized Agency, it is still considered part of the "UN System", which includes Taiwan under a special designation. ] (] · ]) – <small>(] <span style="color:#4dac8b;">♥</span>)</small> 21:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
For option 1, the list of excluded entities includes {{tq|Those areas undergoing current civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession, regardless of temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria (e.g. by receiving recognition as state or legitimate government), where the conflict is still in its active phase, the situation is too rapidly changing and no relatively stable quasi-states have emerged yet.}}, a description that seems to perfectly match the position of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. This is already standard consensus at ], and that list is the only potentially-meaningful difference in the definition of a "state" between the two lists.


===States with partial recognition within the UN system===
For option 2, the theory holds that statehood arises from recognition by other states. While claims a precise number ({{tq|if, and only if, it is recognised as sovereign by at least one other state}}), the literature is not nearly so prescriptive. In fact, the constitutive theory is a more general theory that says that statehood depends on recognition and not on the facts on the ground (see ). An example definition we could use that would fit with this definition is that any member or observer state at the United Nations that is recognised by at least one other state meets the standard of the constitutive theory, but that entities not part of the UN must also be sourced as meeting the standard of the declarative theory.
{{col-begin|width=760px}}
{{col-2}}
'''"Membership within the UN System" column legend'''
{{legend|#e2efda|Member of a UN System organization}}
{{legend|#F5DEB3|Recognized national liberation movement}}
{{col-2}}
'''"Sovereignty dispute" column legend'''
{{legend|white|Undisputed sovereignty}}
{{legend|#fcc|Disputed sovereignty}}
{{col-end}}
{| class="sortable wikitable sticky-header" text-align:left;"
|-
! style="width:150pt;"| Common and formal names
! style="width:90pt;"| Membership within the ]{{efn|name="UN System"}}
! style="width:90pt;"| Sovereignty dispute{{efn|This column indicates whether or not a state is the subject of a major sovereignty dispute. Only states whose entire sovereignty is disputed by another state are listed.}}
! class="unsortable"| Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty{{efn|Information is included on:
* The extent to which a state's sovereignty is recognised internationally. More information can be found at ],
* Membership in the ],{{efn|name="EU"}} where applicable,
* Any ], if applicable, which are generally not part of the territory of the sovereign state,
* ] of the state, where applicable. More information can be found at ],
* Any ] inside the territory of the sovereign state,
* Any situations where one person is the Head of State of more than one state,
* Any ] recognised by at least one state.}}
|-
|-
|<span id="Cook Islands"></span>'''{{flag|Cook Islands}}'''
| style="background:#e2efda;" |<span style="display:none">D</span> Member of eight ]
|<span style="display:none">A</span> None<br /><small>(See ])</small>
{{extent}}A state in ] with ], the Cook Islands maintains ] and is recognized as a sovereign state by a number of them. The Cook Islands is a member of ] with full treaty making capacity.<ref name="untreaty1"/> It shares a ] with New Zealand as well as having ].
|-
|<span id="Kosovo"></span>'''{{flag|Kosovo}}'''&nbsp;– Republic of Kosovo
| style="background:#e2efda;" |<span style="display:none">D</span> Member of two ]
| style="background:#fcc;" |{{claimedby|SERBIA}}
{{extent}}Pursuant to ], Kosovo was placed under the administration of the ] in 1999.<ref>{{cite web|title=United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo|url=https://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unmik/|website=UN|access-date=8 January 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141225015010/http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unmik/|archive-date=25 December 2014|url-status=live|df=dmy-all}}</ref> Kosovo ], and it has {{Numrec|Kosovo|received diplomatic recognition from|UN member states}} and the ], while 18 of those states have recognised Kosovo only to later withdraw their recognition.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.mfa.gov.rs/sr/index.php/pres-servis/saopstenja/22340--18-k-sl03032020?lang=lat|title=''"Sijera Leone je 18. država koja je povukla priznanje tzv. Kosova"''}}</ref> Serbia continues to maintain its sovereignty claim over Kosovo. Other UN member states and non UN member states continue to recognise Serbian sovereignty or have taken no position on the question. Kosovo is a member of the ] and the ]. The Republic of Kosovo has de facto control over most of the territory, with limited control in ].
|-
|<span id="Niue"></span>'''{{flag|Niue}}'''
| style="background:#e2efda;"|<span style="display:none">D</span> Member of five ]
|<span style="display:none">A</span> None<br /><small>(See ])</small>
{{extent}}A state in ] with ], Niue maintains ] and is recognized as a sovereign state by a number of them. Niue is a member of ] with full treaty making capacity.<ref name="untreaty1"/> It shares a ] with New Zealand as well as having ].
|-
|<span id="SADR"></span>'''{{flag|Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic}}'''
| style="background:Wheat;" |<span style="display:none">D</span> Recognized ]
| style="background:#fcc;" |{{claimedby|MOROCCO}}
{{extent}}The ], which administers the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, is recognized by the UN as the ] of the people of ].<ref> A/RES/34/37 (1979)</ref><ref> A/RES/35/19 (1980)</ref> Recognised at some stage by {{Numrec|Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic||UN member states}}, {{Numrec|Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic|W=Y|link=N}} of which have since withdrawn or frozen their recognition. It is a founding member of the ], an international organization with ] at the UN General Assembly.


The territories under its control, the so-called ], are claimed in whole by ] as part of its ]. In turn, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic claims the part of Western Sahara to the west of the ] controlled by Morocco. Its government resides in exile in ], ].
Option 3, I find unsatisfactory for all the reasons previously discussed, but I include it here to acknowledge that mine is not the only valid position on this.
|-
|<span id="Taiwan"></span>'''{{flag|Republic of China|name=Taiwan}}'''&nbsp;– Republic of China{{efn|name="ChinaTaiwan"}}
| style="background:#e2efda;" |<span style="display:none">D</span> ]; member of one ]{{efn|Participates in the ] under the designation of "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu".}}
| style="background:#fcc;" |]. {{claimedby|PRC}}
{{extent}}A state competing (nominally) for recognition with the ] (PRC) as the government of China since 1949. The Republic of China (ROC) controls the island of ], ], ], the ], and ], as well as ] and ] of the ], and has not renounced claims over its annexed territories on the ].<ref>{{Cite news |title=Ma refers to China as ROC territory in magazine interview |work=] |date=8 October 2008 |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/10/08/2003425320 |access-date=13 October 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090603213128/http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/10/08/2003425320 |archive-date=3 June 2009 |url-status=live |df=dmy-all}}</ref> The ROC is recognised by {{Numrec|Republic of China|alt=UN member states and the Holy See as of}} UN member states as well as Vatican City, none of which recognise the PRC. Additionally, one UN member (]) has ] either the ROC or the PRC.
In addition to these relations, the ROC also maintains unofficial relations<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ey.gov.tw/state/News_Content3.aspx?n=A88B8E342A02AD0A&s=F1B6AD3B065E43D8|script-title=zh:中華民國國情介紹|date=22 March 2017|website=2.16.886.101.20003}}</ref> with 58 UN member states, one ] (]), three territories (], ], and ]), and the ] via its ] under the ] principle. Taiwan has the 31st-largest diplomatic network in the world with 110 offices.<ref>{{cite web |last1=van der Wees |first1=Gerrit |title=Is Taiwan's International Space Expanding or Contracting? |url=https://thediplomat.com/2021/12/is-taiwans-international-space-expanding-or-contracting/ |website=thediplomat.com |publisher=The Diplomat |access-date=16 December 2021}}</ref>
The territory of the ROC is claimed in whole by the PRC.{{efn|name="TAI2"}} The ROC ] under a variety of pseudonyms, most commonly "]" and in the ] it has full membership under the designation of "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu".{{efn|name=WTO|While the WTO is formally separate from the UN, it is recognized as being part of the UN System due to their very close relationship.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-system|title=UN System|access-date=23 November 2024|website=United Nations}}</ref>}} The ROC was a founding member of the UN and enjoyed membership from 1945 to 1971, with veto power in the ]. See ].
|}


===Other states===
Option 4, in reality maintaining this list requires a certain amount of judgement from editors. We would traditionally argue that this all flows from sources, but it is true that the two theories of statehood are stated in decidedly woolly terms and (per point 2) there are many interpretations that could be made. We have articles like ] which might reasonably serve as suitable proxies.
{{col-begin|width=760px}}
{{col-2}}
'''"Membership within the UN System" column legend'''
{{legend|lemonchiffon|No membership}}
{{col-2}}
'''"Sovereignty dispute" column legend'''
{{legend|#fcc|Disputed sovereignty}}
{{col-end}}
{| class="sortable wikitable sticky-header" text-align:left;"
|-
! style="width:150pt;"| Common and formal names
! style="width:90pt;"| Membership within the ]{{efn|name="UN System"|This column indicates whether or not a state is a member of the ].<ref name="unms"/> It also indicates which non-member states participate in the ] through membership in the ], one of the ], or a closely-related organization. All United Nations members belong to at least one specialized agency and are parties to the statute of the ]. The UN also recognizes ].}}
! style="width:90pt;"| Sovereignty dispute{{efn|This column indicates whether or not a state is the subject of a major sovereignty dispute. Only states whose entire sovereignty is disputed by another state are listed.}}
! class="unsortable"| Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty{{efn|Information is included on:
* The extent to which a state's sovereignty is recognised internationally. More information can be found at ],
* Membership in the ],{{efn|name="EU"}} where applicable,
* Any ], if applicable, which are generally not part of the territory of the sovereign state,
* ] of the state, where applicable. More information can be found at ],
* Any ] inside the territory of the sovereign state,
* Any situations where one person is the Head of State of more than one state,
* Any ] recognised by at least one state.}}
|-
|<span id="Abkhazia"></span>'''{{flag|Abkhazia}}'''&nbsp;– Republic of Abkhazia
| style="background:LemonChiffon;" |<span style="display:none">D</span> No membership
| style="background:#fcc;" |{{claimedby|GEORGIA}}
{{extent}}] Russia, Nicaragua, Nauru, Syria, Venezuela, South Ossetia, and Transnistria.<ref name=ASOTREC>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsru.com/russia/17nov2006/aup.html|date=17 November 2006|access-date=5 June 2011|script-title=ru:Абхазия, Южная Осетия и Приднестровье признали независимость друг друга и призвали всех к этому же|publisher=newsru.com|language=ru|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090416050525/http://www.newsru.com/russia/17nov2006/aup.html|archive-date=16 April 2009|url-status=live}}</ref> Claimed in whole by ] as the ].
|-
|<span id="Northern Cyprus"></span>'''{{flag|Northern Cyprus}}'''&nbsp;– Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
| style="background:LemonChiffon;" |<span style="display:none">D</span> No membership
| style="background:#fcc;" |{{claimedby|CYPRUS}}
{{extent}} ] ]. Under the name "]", it is an observer state of the ] and the ]. Northern Cyprus is claimed in whole by the ].<ref>{{Citation|title=Cyprus|date=7 June 2023|url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/cyprus/|work=The World Factbook|publisher=Central Intelligence Agency|access-date=11 June 2023}}</ref>
|-
|<span id="Somaliland"></span>'''{{flag|Somaliland}}'''&nbsp;– Republic of Somaliland
| style="background:LemonChiffon;" |<span style="display:none">D</span> No membership
| style="background:#fcc;" |{{claimedby|SOMALIA}}
{{extent}}A de facto independent state,<ref name=montevideo>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4PwmeRG9QsUC|last1=Ker-Lindsay|first1=James|title=The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States|page=53|publisher=]|year=2012|quote=In addition to the four cases of contested statehood described above, there are three other territories that have unilaterally declared independence and are generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria for statehood but have not been recognised by any states: Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland.|access-date=24 September 2013|df=dmy-all|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131009041217/http://books.google.com/books?id=4PwmeRG9QsUC|archive-date=9 October 2013|url-status=live|isbn=9780199698394}}</ref><ref name=FailureofStates>{{cite journal|url=http://minnjil.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/kreuterweb-pdf.pdf|last1=Kreuter|first1=Aaron|title=Self-Determination, Sovereignty, and the Failure of States: Somaliland and the Case for Justified Secession|journal=]|volume=19|pages=380–381|publisher=]|year=2010|issue=2 |quote=Considering each of these factors, Somaliland has a colorable argument that it meets the theoretical requirements of statehood. ... On these bases, Somaliland appears to have a strong claim to statehood.|access-date=24 September 2013|df=dmy-all|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130927082111/http://minnjil.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/kreuterweb-pdf.pdf|archive-date=27 September 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name=AfricaReport>{{cite journal|url=http://www.operationspaix.net/IMG/pdf/ICG_Somaliland_AU_Leadership_2006-05-23_.pdf|author=International Crisis Group|title=Somaliland: Time for African Union leadership|journal=]|issue=110|pages=10–13|publisher=]|date=23 May 2006|access-date=19 April 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110720022321/http://www.operationspaix.net/IMG/pdf/ICG_Somaliland_AU_Leadership_2006-05-23_.pdf|archive-date=20 July 2011|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref name=PolSomaliland>{{cite journal|url=http://www.somalilandtimes.net/sl/2009/403/P200.pdf|last1=Mesfin|first1=Berouk|title=The political development of Somaliland and its conflict with Puntland|journal=ISS Paper|issue=200|page=8|publisher=]|date=September 2009|access-date=19 April 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111123043040/http://www.somalilandtimes.net/sl/2009/403/P200.pdf|archive-date=23 November 2011|df=dmy}}</ref><ref name=StrangeCase>{{cite journal|url=http://yalejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/083206arieff.pdf|last1=Arieff|first1=Alexis|title=de facto Statehood? The Strange Case of Somaliland|journal=]|issue=Spring/Summer 2008|pages=1–79|publisher=International Affairs Council at Yale|access-date=17 April 2011|df=dmy-all|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111213214545/http://yalejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/083206arieff.pdf|archive-date=13 December 2011|url-status=live}}</ref>{{excessive citations inline|date=September 2023}} ] any other state;{{efn|Though ].}} claimed in whole by the ].<ref name="Somalilandprofile">{{cite web|title=Somaliland profile|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14115069|website=]|date=14 December 2017|access-date=27 January 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170423054426/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14115069|archive-date=23 April 2017|url-status=live|df=dmy-all}}</ref>
|-
|<span id="South Ossetia"></span>'''{{flag|South Ossetia}}'''&nbsp;– Republic of South Ossetia–the State of Alania
| style="background:LemonChiffon;" |<span style="display:none">D</span> No membership
| style="background:#fcc;" |{{claimedby|GEORGIA}}
{{extent}}A de facto independent state,<ref>{{Cite journal|author=Jansen, Dinah|title=The Conflict between Self-Determination and Territorial Integrity: the South Ossetian Paradigm|url=https://es.scribd.com/document/31659924/The-Conflict-between-Self-Determination-and-Territorial-Integrity-The-South-Ossetian-Paradigm|journal=Geopolitics Vs. Global Governance: Reinterpreting International Security|pages=222–242|year=2009|publisher=Centre for Foreign Policy Studies, University of Dalhousie|isbn=978-1-896440-61-3|access-date=14 December 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180819063355/https://es.scribd.com/document/31659924/The-Conflict-between-Self-Determination-and-Territorial-Integrity-The-South-Ossetian-Paradigm|archive-date=19 August 2018|url-status=live|df=dmy-all}}</ref> ] Russia, Nicaragua, Nauru, Syria, Venezuela, Abkhazia, and Transnistria. Claimed in whole by ] as the ].<ref name="cnnAbSO">{{Cite news|title=Russia condemned for recognising rebel regions|url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/26/russia.vote.georgia/index.html|newspaper=CNN.com|publisher=Cable News Network|date=26 August 2008|access-date=26 August 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080829045537/http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/26/russia.vote.georgia/index.html|archive-date=29 August 2008|url-status=live|df=dmy-all}}</ref>
|-
|<span id="Transnistria"></span>'''{{flag|Transnistria}}'''&nbsp;– Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic
| style="background:LemonChiffon;" |<span style="display:none">D</span> No membership
| style="background:#fcc;" |{{claimedby|MOLDOVA}}
{{extent}}A de facto independent state,<ref name=montevideo/> ] Abkhazia and South Ossetia.<ref name=ASOTREC /> Claimed in whole by ].<ref>{{Cite news|date=20 November 2022|title=Transnistria profile – Overview|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18286268|access-date=11 June 2023}}</ref>
|} ] (] · ]) – <small>(] <span style="color:#4dac8b;">♥</span>)</small> 21:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)


:I'm not entirely opposed to this. I think your idea has some merit. Two comments:
I would be interested in hearing others' views on this. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 08:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:1. What exactly is a "recognized national liberation movement"? Is there some kind of verifiable source for UN recognition of this nature? And does it qualify it as UN-associated?
:2. I'm wary about classifying the WTO as "UN-associated". I don't know enough about their relationship to say for sure one way or the other. ] (]) 21:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::1. A "]" is a designation from the 1970s–1980s that granted special status to certain groups during decolonisation, but is still in force today. For example, the ] was a recognized national liberation movement until it was promoted to a ] in 2012. The UN receives communications from and maintains relations with the Polisario Front (the administrators of the SADR) as the "legitimate representative" of ], a ]. The Polisario Front's international status has been recently by the EU Court of Justice. I've cited the two UN resolutions that initially granted recognition as sources in the "Further information" column.
::2. The WTO is listed on the official UN System website. So, though it is not a specialized agency and formally separate from the UN, it is still recognized as part of the UN System due to their close relations. Taiwan participates in the WTO. Again, it seems disingenuous to group Taiwan with other states that have almost no international legitimacy.
::Let me know if that helps. ] (] · ]) – <small>(] <span style="color:#4dac8b;">♥</span>)</small> 22:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you. That helps me understand your points a lot better. ] (]) 13:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:Opposed to this unless there is widespread sourcing that defines "partial recognition within the UN system". This also feels redundant to the existing column. Regarding the rationale, we have never found convincing sourcing to define "widely-recognized", and certainly I've never seen Taiwan described as such. ] (]) 03:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::I think what Nice4What means is states that aren't members of the UN, but which are associated with the UN in some way. As you point out, the sources are the sticking point. However, we already distinguish between states that are members of a UN specialised agency and those that aren't. That seems much more objective than the current proposal.
::It does make some sense to me that members of specialised agencies would be seen as somewhat more legitimate in the eyes of the UN than states that aren't. However, again, the sources might not back up such an assertion. ] (]) 13:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::The sorting criteria was based on the organizations that it was, because that's a common approach used by the international community to determine whether states have the legal capacity to independently become parties to treaties. This is the so called "Vienna formula", which is summarized here: ].
:::It's not clear what the justification/rational for considering other organizations, but as mentioned we'd need sources to support it. ] (]) 17:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


== Denmark ==
:Go with Option 1, simplest, has a consensus at the other page already and solves the problem. ] (]) 12:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:I prefer option 1 above, although we could perhaps word it more succinctly if it must be included on the page as well (must it?). That said, I don't agree with the premise of the discussion that it is an issue if our system breaks down if real life breaks down. When this happens, that is the list accurately changing to reflect what it is covering. This page covers an aspect of the international system defined by a set of conventions that can be abused. I don't see trying to smooth over this abuse when it occurs through the pretense that there is a right non-abused version as somehow more neutral. There is currently a state playing fast and loose with the rules of the topic this list is covering; reflecting that on the list reflects what is happening in the world. This ties into the thought behind option 4. The criteria was agreed on in part to try and get away from individually editorial assessments of specific polities. In that sense there is some OR, because we had to pick something out of the many options available from different sources. However, the criteria are specifically designed to greatly reduce the scope for OR. I'm not following the assertion that the constitutive theory requires judgment from editors, as it is probably as binary as possible <small>(ignoring Somaliland and Taiwan here)</small>. The declarative theory is the criteria that actually requires judgment, as it requires us to evaluate sources, although even there we have a pretty hard line in that we have looked for sources that explicitly bring up the declarative theory (and this kept DPR and LPR off this list for many years). Giving it more prominence in the criteria (option 3) will increase the room for editorial judgment (and accusations of OR), not reduce it. ] (]) 13:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


Is it supposed to be the state flag? ] (]) 20:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::A proposal per option 1 might be to add the following before the line {{tq|On the basis of the above criteria, this list includes the following...}}:
:{{ping|RelliKtiabkcilK}} No, it isn't. The implementation was hidden deep, but I rectified it with ]. ] (]) 20:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::Ah yes, that was me, sorry. I changed the flag on the article for the Danish Realm from the state flag to the standard flag. I didn't realise there was a data page I had to edit as well. ] (]) 19:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Ah, ok. I get it. ] (]) 21:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


== Discussion of rv ==
{{collapse top|Suggested text}}
Entities may sometimes be excluded from the list, even if they might be argued to meet the standard laid out. These include:
*]s, ]s and subnational entities that do not claim sovereignty, or that are not considered by independent sources to meet the standard of the declarative theory as described above.
*Entities that, in the context of an active war or dispute, technically meet the standard for a brief period but where no stable ]s have been formed.
*Alternative governments of existing states, where the government does not claim to govern a separate state tot hat listed.
*]s
*Non-state entities represented in international organisations, such as the ] and ].
*]s.
{{collapse bottom}}


@] First off, Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays! Anyway, I would like a full justification for your rv. I fully believe that I am following and standardizing the formatting used throughout the article. As for other changes (solving the excessive citations issue for Somaliland, unifying the notes for the top row of both tables, punctuation/grammar, etc.) I will automatically assume that it is alright to add them back if you don't justify reverting those. Cheers mate! ] (]) 19:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Wording is a work in process, happy for it to be revised. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 14:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
::::I would bold edit that in and then anyone can tinker with it thereafter in the usual way. ] (]) 15:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::Done. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 16:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::I've edited the wording. If you object to some of my changes, feel free to make your own further changes. ] (]) 18:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::I have trimmed. Actually quite a lot - smaller than even my original addition. I've kept some of your wording, but I'm concerned that this shouldn't be an exhaustive list of all the things that don't belong, particularly in cases where it is clearly redundant to the inclusion criteria above (e.g. dependent territories, UK countries, EU/SMOM). The four categories I've left cover, I would suggest, the vast majority of entities that get proposed and rejected here.


:The edit in question was a huge single edit that said cleanup but was doing quite a few things that go beyond cleanup. I saw a few good changes, but what caught my eye and I already mentioned in the edit summary was applying the dependency formatting to autonomous areas. ] (]) 02:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::In the case of the governments-in-exile one, part of the point is that they are not always in exile. The point is where we have places like Venezuela, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya, where foreign governments loudly recognise President X as the legitimate president of Y, but President X either doesn't have control (even if they live in-country) or only has control of part of the country. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 20:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::I read through the changes and noted that it was partially duplicative of our already existing note of clarification. I've merged the two into the note to reduce this duplication, as such a note seems the best way to not drown out the simple criteria we have with a number of asterixes to deal with grey areas. ] (]) 00:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC) ::Oh alright, my apologies, I just applied the formatting to entities that had flags under the flag template. I did not know of this beforehand. If that is the only issue, I will add back relevant changes soon. :) ] (]) 15:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Is there a general list of changes? I noticed the adding of further efns and a few c/es that seemed good. ] (]) 16:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::As far as I'm concerned, the current state of the article is the consensus. A user has been trying to revert back to an old revision for some reason. I think he is trying to restore the statuses of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia into the article... Otherwise, I don't see why he is increasing the number of states from 208 to 210. 208 includes the DPR and LPR, whereas 210 adds Kherson and Zaporizhzhia on top of that. ] (]) 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::I would like to apologize as I am not quite familiar with Misplaced Pages jargon, so I may have misapplied some terms. Anyhow, in my :
:::::::::I've removed the sentences about dependent territories etc because they aren't listed as primary entries. Indeed, they are listed as secondary entries, within the main entries about countries. E.g. the Faroe Islands and Greenland are listed inside of Denmark's main entry. ] (]) 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::A. cleaned up links
::::::::::Those sentences are specifically there to provide some context to the extents. ] (]) 15:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::1. removed nonexistent section link ("summary by country") from ] (line 58)
:::::::::::They aren't necessary since the table itself (in the header) explains that information. ] (]) 15:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::2. removed redirect to ] (line 58)
::::::::::::They are there as longstanding clarifications regarding the criteria and are in the criteria section for that reason, as they cover entities that are sometimes included on similar lists (with names including those that might redirect here) but not on this one. ] (]) 15:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::3. corrected section link to ] by replacing nonexistent section "co-principality" with ] (line 84)
:::::::::::::I've shortened the sentence. It carries the same meaning, except that I've moved Cook Islands and Niue into the main list. "Similar entities" covers Hong Kong, Macau, Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir, etc. ] (]) 15:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::4. corrected section link to ] by replacing nonexistent section "relationship between the realms" with ], fixing the link name accordingly ("Commonwealth realm interrelationship") (line 94)
:::::::::::::The list only includes sovereign states. That excludes 99% of dependent territories and autonomous regions by default. It's self-explanatory. The only weird cases are Cook Islands and Niue. ] (]) 15:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::5. removed redirect to ] (line 122)
::::::::::::::Please stop, CI/Niue are included already in the upper list as entities recognised by 1 or more UN member states. As to your other point, given this discussion (and the rest of this talkpage) is occurring, it's obviously not self-explanatory. ] (]) 15:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::6. removed redirect to ] (line 152)
:::::::::::::::They actually aren't in the upper list. If you count the entries in the upper list, Cook Islands and Niue are excluded. Indeed, Cook Islands and Niue are two examples of states in an free association arrangement. The other three main examples are Palau, Marshall Islands, and Micronesia. This description also applies to certain European microstates. ] (]) 15:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::7. removed redirect to ] (line 197)
::::::::::::::::205+2+1=208. Not sure what you're counting. ] (]) 15:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::8. corrected section link to ] by replacing nonexistent section "international recognition of the People's Republic of China" with ] (line 256)
:::::::::::::::::Which sovereign states recognise Cook Islands and Niue as sovereign states? There's an article that says 50+ states have diplomatic relations with Cook Islands, but there seems to be a distinction between diplomatic relations and sovereign recogntion. ] (]) 16:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::9. removed redirects to ] and ] (line 262)
:::::::::::::::::In any case, this will all be cleared up once DPR and LPR are removed from the list. I've also removed the entry for "states in free association" since that really only covers Cook Islands, Niue, Palau, Marshall Islands, and Micronesia, all of whom are already in the list. ] (]) 16:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::B. added links
::::::::::::::::::Please self-revert your edit warring changes into long-standing text. During previous discussions some editors found specific references they felt sufficiently established recognition as sovereign states (I was not one of these editors), and that led to their inclusion. As for free association, again that section is about the extents not the main list, and the CI/Niue case and the US cases are not the same. ] (]) 16:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::1. linked ] to "Argentine Constitution" (line 94)
:::::::::::::::::::Please list some entities in the "extents" that are formally considered to be states in free association. ] (]) 16:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::2. linked ] (line 152)
::::::::::::::::::::The Cook Islands and Niue? ] (]) 01:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::3. the note is about the use of Dominion as a name of Canada, so I directly linked it to ] and ] (line 229)
:::::::::::::::::::::They aren't in the extents. They are in the main area. ] (]) 02:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::4. linked ] (line 262)
::::::::::::::::::::::They are also in an extent, hence why they are mentioned in the part of the text dealing with what is in the extents. ] (]) 02:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
::::C. c/es
:I started a discussion thread on this article at NORN. ] (]) 15:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::1. rewrote note for formal name of ] by aligning it with ] (line 122)
:I am '''Opposed''' to any changes in the inclusion criteria, they were the result of a major RFC that has worked well for years. If anyone is proposing they be changed, they should open a formal RFC.] (]) 14:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::For B2&4, I erroneously linked the country names to their respective articles at first, but I linked them to their respective sections on the list in my second edit in accordance with the rest of the article. That is all the changes I made in my 1st edit, none of which concern the dependency formatting. If you have no objections, I will add these changes back to the article, and summarize the rest of my changes (made in my second edit). ] (]) 07:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::The sentences about dependent territories etc are unnecessary. These territories are included as subsections of the main entries by default. They are not listed as primary entries. ] (]) 15:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::They are absolutely necessary, they are the inclusion criteria for what gets bulleted in the right hand column of the page. If those sentences weren't there, it would go back to the way it was before they were added with random changes getting added and removed every other day.] (]) 15:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::There's no need for those criteria. The right-hand column already has an explanation of its contents in the header (there's a note). Also, the entries in that column are typically limited to dependent territories, autonomous regions, and similar entities. It's pretty straightforward in my view. ] (]) 15:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::Objectively speaking, places like Hong Kong and Macau are not sovereign states. The only people who view them in this way are the uninformed. Legally, they are controlled by the People's Republic of China. No sovereign state claims authority over Hong Kong, not even Hong Kong itself. The PRC regards Hong Kong as part of its internal territory, whereas Hong Kong is regarded as more of an external dependency by the West. Either way, Hong Kong is not a sovereign state. It's a similar case with many other similar entities, the only exceptions being Cook Islands and Niue, which behave like dependent territories of New Zealand but also operate as sovereign states in certain respects, e.g. foreign affairs. ] (]) 15:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::@] - As far as I can tell, the current state of the article is pretty close to what the consensus is, because various users of varying viewpoints have all more or less settled at this point. The only person who is opposed to the edits is you, which actually means that you are going against the consensus. The current consensus is to leave the DPR and LPR inside the article and to exclude Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, as far as I'm aware. The Criteria was also abbreviated, and an extra point of "unstable states during warfare are excluded" was added. ] (]) 15:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::There is an ongoing discussion regarding the inclusion criteria at NORN and other editors aside from myself have voiced serious concerns about user:Kahastok's proposal. The incusion criteria as they stood were created through a lenghty RFC processes with large numbers of editors. If you want to amend the inclusion critera, open a form RFC request.] (]) 15:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::I've got no clue what "NORN" is. Furthermore, I haven't changed the criteria myself since the "extents" fall outside of the main criteria anyhow. Dependent territories aren't included in the list by default. ] (]) 15:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::the Dependent territories and entities created by international treaty have always been included in this page as bulleted entities on the right hand column of the page. They are thus, "included in the list by default". If you had bothered to read what you were deleting, it would have been apparant.] (]) 15:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::You have not explained anything here. ] (]) 16:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::I figured out what you guys are talking about. "No original research noticeboard." ] (]) 17:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::Hmm, I don't think an RFC is necessary. If it were a substantial change I would agree, however it is a change only at the margin and the change appears to have consensus up till now. The discussion at NORN is a separate issue. ] (]) 15:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::The proposal is a substantial change, it could result in Armenia, Artsak, and Somaliland being removed from the list. They are all states that are partially recongized and yet are in the midst of active military conflicts. Your attempts to craft the inclusion criteria to get the specific result you want (removing the Russian puppet states) will have other ramifications well beyond what you intend. The situation at hand is nothing new, throughout history there have been states created at the instigation of another that were only partially recognized and then annexed or merged into another state. Examples include the various revolutionary republics founded in the late 1790's that were sponsored and recognized by France, the Republic of Texas and Republic of Hawaii, various Axis aligned client states like Slovakia, Tannu Tuva and Mongolia (Soviet client states) in the 1930's, ] and ]. Thus, the proposal is in fact a major change because in effect it seeks to eliminate an entire class of states from the page that have existed throughout history.] (]) 15:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::Since when is Somaliland in the midst of an active military conflict? Somaliland's status is very stable at the moment, although it is located right next to Ethiopia (and Tigray), which is extremely unstable at the moment. Also, nobody in their right mind is going to remove Armenia from the list. That's a preposterous suggestion. The only entity that might be removed from the list is Artsakh, but Artsakh is actually fairly stable in its present state. There is currently no direct warfare occurring in Artsakh, although Azerbaijan has recently been launching direct attacks against Armenia. ] (]) 16:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::] Its eastern frontier is constently in flux, with fighting often flaring around election season and Federalist forces have frequently siezed control of Buuhoodle. As for Armenia and Artsakh, i suggest you give this article a read. ].] (]) 16:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::That's not a significant enough conflict to nullify its existence. The border region is fluctuating, but the core area of the country has remained relatively stable throughout its entire existence. Indeed, compared to mainland Somalia, Somaliland is actually more stable. Also, the border with Ethiopia and Djibouti is stable. ] (]) 16:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::As for Armenia, Armenia's own sovereignty has never been seriously at risk. Only the sovereignty of Artsakh is at risk. If Artsakh is wiped from the map, that doesn't mean that Armenia will be removed as well. All of the countries that surround Armenia recognise its sovereignty, including Armenia's enemies such as Azerbaijan and Turkey. Armenia is a member state of the United Nations. Armenia also has a long and well-established history as a distinctive nation, going back thousands of years. ] (]) 16:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Armenia has only existed as a soveriegn state since 1991, and since that time it has been in an armed conflict with Azerbijan and affirmatively not recognized by Pakistan.] (]) 16:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Pakistan's non-recognition of Armenia is insignificant considering that Azerbaijan itself recognises Armenia. Furthermore, even though Armenia has only been independent in its contemporary form since 1991, the cultural history of Armenia stretches back to the era of the Roman Republic. Armenia is an ancient country, and it has at various times fallen under the control of various empires, such as Persia, the Ottomans, and Russia, but the national identity has never been destroyed throughout that period. Indeed, Artsakh has a high likelihood of disappearing at some point in the future, either by being absorbed into Azerbaijan or by being annexed by Armenia. Artsakh has no real national identity that is separate from Armenia. ] (]) 16:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Out of 193 UN member states, the only one that doesn't recognise Armenia is Pakistan. Nobody takes Pakistan's stance seriously, and you shouldn't either. ] (]) 16:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Looking at it from a national identity perspective, Armenia is actually one of the least likely states to become extinct in the future. Countries exist both in the legal form and in the national form. Some countries that exist legally don't have a particularly strong national identity, and hence they are at genuine risk of collapsing even though they possess 100% international recognition. On the other hand, Armenia has managed to survive for this long already (around 3000 years), so I don't see any reason why it would cease to exist in the near future unless some kind of massive Second Armenian Genocide occurs where they are all wiped out. Even then, Armenia has a significant diaspora overseas, which is actually larger than the population of the modern-day sovereign state itself. ] (]) 16:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::@] - At the present moment, I have no intention of removing Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR from the list. The only entities that I objected to being added to the list were Kherson and Zaporizhzhia since they clearly are not real countries, having been ostensibly established by Russia inside of Ukraine during an ongoing military invasion and occupation. Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR are different because they were ostensibly established by "separatists", who subsequently developed closer ties with Russia before eventually being absorbed voluntarily into Russia. ] (]) 16:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::I think it rather fanciful that any good faith editor would consider even five years to be "a brief period", let alone thirty. Personally, I'd struggle to justify that description for anything much more than a few months and my instinctive limit would be a week or two. And I'd also add that in order to apply this criterion, we'd have to know that the period was going to be "brief".


== Chinland and Wa State ==
::::::I don't think anyone here is claiming the wording as sacrosanct and unchangeable however. We could quantify the time period if it would help. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 17:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::The distinction of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia is that they were undeniably created by Russia during Russia's invasion and occupation of Ukraine, having been seized directly from Ukraine in a blatant land grab. This makes Kherson and Zaporizhzhia even different from Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR. With the Donetsk and Luhansk PRs, at least they had the appearance of "separatists" who genuinely desired self-determination. On the other hand, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia never had any kind of separatists to speak of. They were simply invaded and annexed by Russia. ] (]) 17:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::By stating or quantifying a time period, you are proposing to inject even more arbitrary original research into the article. Your proposal itself is original research, neither the declarative or constitutive theories of statehood say that the fact a state is created during an ongoing conflict renders that polity not to be a state.] (]) 18:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::@] - Kherson and Zaporizhzhia have never fulfilled the criteria of the declarative theory of statehood. They only fulfill the constitutive theory due to having been recognised by Russia, but this is a clear abuse of the system. Russia apparently didn't even recognise them as "republics". They literally recognised them as "oblasts". So, according to Russia, "Kherson Oblast" and "Zaporizhzhia Oblast" are real independent sovereign states. ] (]) 18:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::How is it "an abuse of the system", the theories of statehood don't care about your personal polical beliefs or those of anyone they are objective and neutral as to all viewpoints.] (]) 18:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::You can't just invade a country, stage referendums where the inhabitants are held at gunpoint, and declare that a piece of territory is an "independent country" within literally just one day of subsequently annexing that piece of territory. ] (]) 18:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::Well, that is exactly what India did to the ] in 1975. The West stayed quiet and said nothing at that time though. Nowadays, Sikkim is universally recognised as a part of India. So.... ] (]) 09:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::By the declarative theory of statehood, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia have never qualified as independent states in any capacity. This is recognised not just by me but by the majority of the world except for Russia and maybe China. ] (]) 19:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::I doubt it. China is the last country on Earth to recognise India’s sovereignty over ], which was annexed by India through a similar sham referendum in 1975. China is a die-hard supporter of ] due to its own ]. ] (]) 09:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


] and ] are pretty much de facto independent states in Myanmar and thus should be included in the list ] (]) 01:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
== Donetsk and Luhansk, one final time ==


:This list only includes states that either have received recognition or have been assessed by reliable sources as meeting the Montevideo Convention criteria. ] (]) 01:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
, meaning that the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, in the form of self-proclaimed sovereign states, do not exist anymore. They should be removed. ] (]) 12:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
::Well then maybe Chinland can’t be included because it doesn’t have relations with other states but the Wa State meets all of the requirements, the Wa State well exists and several sources back that up so thus it has a population, the government claims territory and so this it has an established territory, it has a government and reliable sources have talked about the fact that the Wa State exist so thus reliable source back up the fact it has a government, and Reuters, which is considered to be reliable, claims that the Wa State had relations with China so at least the Wa State should be included ] (]) 02:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think that the main thing is that the Wa State itself does not claim to be a sovereign state, so there's no basis for its inclusion in the list even if it fits the criteria of being a sovereign state (which is debatable as well). ] (]) 06:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::unless I missed something I’m pretty sure there isn’t anything in the article that states that the state itself has to view itself as independent to be included in the list so I’m pretty sure it’s still technically qualified to be in the list ] (]) 07:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Under ], 2nd paragraph: "For the purposes of this list, included are all polities that '''consider themselves sovereign states (through a declaration of independence or some other means)'''..."
:::::It is clearly stated in the ] article that it recognizes Myanmar's sovereignty over all of its territory, so it fails this criterion. ] (]) 04:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:14, 3 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of sovereign states article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This list has a detailed criteria for inclusion. Please do not add new entries without prior discussion. Items that do not fit the set criteria, such as Antarctica, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and polities normally classified as dependent territories, micronations, supranational unions or constituent political divisions will be removed.
This list has a detailed criteria for organization. Please do not change the categorizations in the table without prior discussion. Changes to the organization of the list of states that go against consensus will be reverted. For more details on the organization criteria, please review the discussion of criteria.
Former featured listList of sovereign states is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 22, 2006Featured list candidatePromoted
November 29, 2008Featured list removal candidateDemoted
March 3, 2009Featured list candidateNot promoted
July 16, 2011Articles for deletionKept
March 12, 2012Featured list candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured list
This article is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconLists High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!


Archiving icon
Archives
  1. Nov 2001 – Apr 2005
  2. Apr 2005 – Feb 2006
  3. Feb 2006 – Nov 2006
  4. Jan 2007 – Jun 2007
  5. Jul 2007 – Apr 2009
  6. Apr 2009 – Apr 2010
  7. Apr 2010 – Jul 2010
  8. Jul 2010 – Feb 2011
  9. Feb 2011 – Jul 2011
  10. Aug 2011 – Jun 2012
  11. Jun 2012 – Nov 2013
  12. Nov 2013 – Jul 2014
  13. Jul 2014 – Dec 2016
  14. Dec 2016 – Jan 2019
  15. Feb 2019 – Oct 2022
  16. Oct 2022 - current

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Older discussions:

North and South Korea's names

Should the reference to Congo be changed to:

Korea, Republic of

Korea, Deomocratic People's Republic of

(machine translation) Gdagys (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Those aren't the common names. They're almost universally referred to in English as North and South Korea. I do, however, think they should be changed to "Korea, North" and "Korea, South", in line with the Congos. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you Gdagys (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
It's not the same thing. South Korea is the area controlled by the Republic of Korea while North Korea is the area controlled by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Using the longer names gives credence to their respective claims, which is why reliable sources generally prefer North and South Korea. It's one country divided by competing governments.
If and when they recognize each other, that will probably change as it did for Germany and China. Reliable sources also stopped referring to China as Mainland, Red or Communist China whe its current government was recognized. TFD (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

New Section for "States partially recognized by the UN System"

Hello. I'd like to propose changing this article to include a new category for States partially recognized by the UN System. It feels disingenuous to have widely-recognized states such as Kosovo, Niue, and the Cook Islands, along with Taiwan (one of the largest diplomatic networks in the world) and the SADR (recognized national liberation movement), lumped together with other separatist states that maintain limited support (Russian-occupied territories, Turkish-occupied Cyprus, Somaliland). I've proposed an edit as such which I will recreate below. Note that while the WTO is not a UN Specialized Agency, it is still considered part of the "UN System", which includes Taiwan under a special designation. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

States with partial recognition within the UN system

"Membership within the UN System" column legend

  Member of a UN System organization   Recognized national liberation movement

"Sovereignty dispute" column legend

  Undisputed sovereignty   Disputed sovereignty

Common and formal names Membership within the UN System Sovereignty dispute Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty
 Cook Islands D Member of eight UN specialized agencies A None
(See political status) 		A state in free association with New Zealand, the Cook Islands maintains diplomatic relations with at least 63 other states and is recognized as a sovereign state by a number of them. The Cook Islands is a member of multiple UN agencies with full treaty making capacity. It shares a head of state with New Zealand as well as having shared citizenship.
 Kosovo – Republic of Kosovo D Member of two UN specialized agencies BClaimed by AfghanistanClaimed by GeorgiaClaimed by North Korea Claimed by Serbia Claimed by Somalia Claimed by the People's Republic of China Claimed by the Republic of China Claimed by South Korea Claimed by Azerbaijan Claimed by the Republic of Cyprus Disputed by Israel Claimed by Indonesia Claimed by the Marshall Islands Claimed by Mauritius Claimed by Morocco Claimed by Moldova Claimed by Mali Claimed by Spain Claimed by Argentina Claimed by Ukraine Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, Kosovo was placed under the administration of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo in 1999. Kosovo declared independence in 2008, and it has received diplomatic recognition from 114 UN member states and the Republic of China, while 18 of those states have recognised Kosovo only to later withdraw their recognition. Serbia continues to maintain its sovereignty claim over Kosovo. Other UN member states and non UN member states continue to recognise Serbian sovereignty or have taken no position on the question. Kosovo is a member of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group. The Republic of Kosovo has de facto control over most of the territory, with limited control in North Kosovo.
 Niue D Member of five UN specialized agencies A None
(See political status) 		A state in free association with New Zealand, Niue maintains diplomatic relations with at least 28 other states and is recognized as a sovereign state by a number of them. Niue is a member of multiple UN agencies with full treaty making capacity. It shares a head of state with New Zealand as well as having shared citizenship.
 Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic D Recognized national liberation movement BClaimed by AfghanistanClaimed by GeorgiaClaimed by North Korea Claimed by Serbia Claimed by Somalia Claimed by the People's Republic of China Claimed by the Republic of China Claimed by South Korea Claimed by Azerbaijan Claimed by the Republic of Cyprus Disputed by Israel Claimed by Indonesia Claimed by the Marshall Islands Claimed by Mauritius Claimed by Morocco Claimed by Moldova Claimed by Mali Claimed by Spain Claimed by Argentina Claimed by Ukraine The Frente Polisario, which administers the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, is recognized by the UN as the legitimate representative of the people of Western Sahara. Recognised at some stage by 84 UN member states, 38 of which have since withdrawn or frozen their recognition. It is a founding member of the African Union, an international organization with permanent observer status at the UN General Assembly.

The territories under its control, the so-called Free Zone, are claimed in whole by Morocco as part of its Southern Provinces. In turn, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic claims the part of Western Sahara to the west of the Moroccan Wall controlled by Morocco. Its government resides in exile in Tindouf, Algeria.

 Taiwan – Republic of China D Former UN member; member of one UN-associated agency Partially unrecognised. BClaimed by AfghanistanClaimed by GeorgiaClaimed by North Korea Claimed by Serbia Claimed by Somalia Claimed by the People's Republic of China Claimed by the Republic of China Claimed by South Korea Claimed by Azerbaijan Claimed by the Republic of Cyprus Disputed by Israel Claimed by Indonesia Claimed by the Marshall Islands Claimed by Mauritius Claimed by Morocco Claimed by Moldova Claimed by Mali Claimed by Spain Claimed by Argentina Claimed by Ukraine A state competing (nominally) for recognition with the People's Republic of China (PRC) as the government of China since 1949. The Republic of China (ROC) controls the island of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, the Matsu Islands, and Pratas Island, as well as Taiping Island and Zhongzhou Reef of the Spratly Islands, and has not renounced claims over its annexed territories on the mainland. The ROC is recognised by 11 UN member states as well as Vatican City, none of which recognise the PRC. Additionally, one UN member (Bhutan) has refrained from recognising either the ROC or the PRC.

In addition to these relations, the ROC also maintains unofficial relations with 58 UN member states, one self-declared state (Somaliland), three territories (Guam, Hong Kong, and Macau), and the European Union via its representative offices and consulates under the One China principle. Taiwan has the 31st-largest diplomatic network in the world with 110 offices.

The territory of the ROC is claimed in whole by the PRC. The ROC participates in international organizations under a variety of pseudonyms, most commonly "Chinese Taipei" and in the WTO it has full membership under the designation of "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu". The ROC was a founding member of the UN and enjoyed membership from 1945 to 1971, with veto power in the UN Security Council. See China and the United Nations.

Other states

"Membership within the UN System" column legend

  No membership

"Sovereignty dispute" column legend

  Disputed sovereignty

Common and formal names Membership within the UN System Sovereignty dispute Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty
 Abkhazia – Republic of Abkhazia D No membership BClaimed by AfghanistanClaimed by GeorgiaClaimed by North Korea Claimed by Serbia Claimed by Somalia Claimed by the People's Republic of China Claimed by the Republic of China Claimed by South Korea Claimed by Azerbaijan Claimed by the Republic of Cyprus Disputed by Israel Claimed by Indonesia Claimed by the Marshall Islands Claimed by Mauritius Claimed by Morocco Claimed by Moldova Claimed by Mali Claimed by Spain Claimed by Argentina Claimed by Ukraine Recognised by Russia, Nicaragua, Nauru, Syria, Venezuela, South Ossetia, and Transnistria. Claimed in whole by Georgia as the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia.
 Northern Cyprus – Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus D No membership BClaimed by AfghanistanClaimed by GeorgiaClaimed by North Korea Claimed by Serbia Claimed by Somalia Claimed by the People's Republic of China Claimed by the Republic of China Claimed by South Korea Claimed by Azerbaijan Claimed by the Republic of Cyprus Disputed by Israel Claimed by Indonesia Claimed by the Marshall Islands Claimed by Mauritius Claimed by Morocco Claimed by Moldova Claimed by Mali Claimed by Spain Claimed by Argentina Claimed by Ukraine Recognised only by Turkey. Under the name "Turkish Cypriot State", it is an observer state of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Economic Cooperation Organization. Northern Cyprus is claimed in whole by the Republic of Cyprus.
 Somaliland – Republic of Somaliland D No membership BClaimed by AfghanistanClaimed by GeorgiaClaimed by North Korea Claimed by Serbia Claimed by Somalia Claimed by the People's Republic of China Claimed by the Republic of China Claimed by South Korea Claimed by Azerbaijan Claimed by the Republic of Cyprus Disputed by Israel Claimed by Indonesia Claimed by the Marshall Islands Claimed by Mauritius Claimed by Morocco Claimed by Moldova Claimed by Mali Claimed by Spain Claimed by Argentina Claimed by Ukraine A de facto independent state, not formally diplomatically recognised by any other state; claimed in whole by the Federal Republic of Somalia.
 South Ossetia – Republic of South Ossetia–the State of Alania D No membership BClaimed by AfghanistanClaimed by GeorgiaClaimed by North Korea Claimed by Serbia Claimed by Somalia Claimed by the People's Republic of China Claimed by the Republic of China Claimed by South Korea Claimed by Azerbaijan Claimed by the Republic of Cyprus Disputed by Israel Claimed by Indonesia Claimed by the Marshall Islands Claimed by Mauritius Claimed by Morocco Claimed by Moldova Claimed by Mali Claimed by Spain Claimed by Argentina Claimed by Ukraine A de facto independent state, recognised by Russia, Nicaragua, Nauru, Syria, Venezuela, Abkhazia, and Transnistria. Claimed in whole by Georgia as the Provisional Administration of South Ossetia.
 Transnistria – Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic D No membership BClaimed by AfghanistanClaimed by GeorgiaClaimed by North Korea Claimed by Serbia Claimed by Somalia Claimed by the People's Republic of China Claimed by the Republic of China Claimed by South Korea Claimed by Azerbaijan Claimed by the Republic of Cyprus Disputed by Israel Claimed by Indonesia Claimed by the Marshall Islands Claimed by Mauritius Claimed by Morocco Claimed by Moldova Claimed by Mali Claimed by Spain Claimed by Argentina Claimed by Ukraine A de facto independent state, recognised only by Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Claimed in whole by Moldova.

Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely opposed to this. I think your idea has some merit. Two comments:
1. What exactly is a "recognized national liberation movement"? Is there some kind of verifiable source for UN recognition of this nature? And does it qualify it as UN-associated?
2. I'm wary about classifying the WTO as "UN-associated". I don't know enough about their relationship to say for sure one way or the other. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
1. A "recognized national liberation movement" is a designation from the 1970s–1980s that granted special status to certain groups during decolonisation, but is still in force today. For example, the PLO was a recognized national liberation movement until it was promoted to a non-member state in 2012. The UN receives communications from and maintains relations with the Polisario Front (the administrators of the SADR) as the "legitimate representative" of Western Sahara, a Non-Self-Governing Territory. The Polisario Front's international status has been recently reaffirmed by the EU Court of Justice. I've cited the two UN resolutions that initially granted recognition as sources in the "Further information" column.
2. The WTO is listed here on the official UN System website. So, though it is not a specialized agency and formally separate from the UN, it is still recognized as part of the UN System due to their close relations. Taiwan participates in the WTO. Again, it seems disingenuous to group Taiwan with other states that have almost no international legitimacy.
Let me know if that helps. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. That helps me understand your points a lot better. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Opposed to this unless there is widespread sourcing that defines "partial recognition within the UN system". This also feels redundant to the existing column. Regarding the rationale, we have never found convincing sourcing to define "widely-recognized", and certainly I've never seen Taiwan described as such. CMD (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I think what Nice4What means is states that aren't members of the UN, but which are associated with the UN in some way. As you point out, the sources are the sticking point. However, we already distinguish between states that are members of a UN specialised agency and those that aren't. That seems much more objective than the current proposal.
It does make some sense to me that members of specialised agencies would be seen as somewhat more legitimate in the eyes of the UN than states that aren't. However, again, the sources might not back up such an assertion. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
The sorting criteria was based on the organizations that it was, because that's a common approach used by the international community to determine whether states have the legal capacity to independently become parties to treaties. This is the so called "Vienna formula", which is summarized here: Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties#Vienna_formula.
It's not clear what the justification/rational for considering other organizations, but as mentioned we'd need sources to support it. TDL (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference untreaty1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. "United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo". UN. Archived from the original on 25 December 2014. Retrieved 8 January 2015.
  3. ""Sijera Leone je 18. država koja je povukla priznanje tzv. Kosova"".
  4. Question of Western Sahara A/RES/34/37 (1979)
  5. Question of Western Sahara A/RES/35/19 (1980)
  6. "Ma refers to China as ROC territory in magazine interview". Taipei Times. 8 October 2008. Archived from the original on 3 June 2009. Retrieved 13 October 2008.
  7. 中華民國國情介紹. 2.16.886.101.20003. 22 March 2017.
  8. van der Wees, Gerrit. "Is Taiwan's International Space Expanding or Contracting?". thediplomat.com. The Diplomat. Retrieved 16 December 2021.
  9. "UN System". United Nations. Retrieved 23 November 2024.
  10. Cite error: The named reference unms was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Абхазия, Южная Осетия и Приднестровье признали независимость друг друга и призвали всех к этому же (in Russian). newsru.com. 17 November 2006. Archived from the original on 16 April 2009. Retrieved 5 June 2011.
  12. "Cyprus", The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency, 7 June 2023, retrieved 11 June 2023
  13. ^ Ker-Lindsay, James (2012). The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States. Oxford University Press. p. 53. ISBN 9780199698394. Archived from the original on 9 October 2013. Retrieved 24 September 2013. In addition to the four cases of contested statehood described above, there are three other territories that have unilaterally declared independence and are generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria for statehood but have not been recognised by any states: Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland.
  14. Kreuter, Aaron (2010). "Self-Determination, Sovereignty, and the Failure of States: Somaliland and the Case for Justified Secession" (PDF). Minnesota Journal of International Law. 19 (2). University of Minnesota Law School: 380–381. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 September 2013. Retrieved 24 September 2013. Considering each of these factors, Somaliland has a colorable argument that it meets the theoretical requirements of statehood. ... On these bases, Somaliland appears to have a strong claim to statehood.
  15. International Crisis Group (23 May 2006). "Somaliland: Time for African Union leadership" (PDF). The Africa Report (110). Groupe Jeune Afrique: 10–13. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 July 2011. Retrieved 19 April 2011.
  16. Mesfin, Berouk (September 2009). "The political development of Somaliland and its conflict with Puntland" (PDF). ISS Paper (200). Institute for Security Studies: 8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 November 2011. Retrieved 19 April 2011.
  17. Arieff, Alexis. "de facto Statehood? The Strange Case of Somaliland" (PDF). Yale Journal of International Affairs (Spring/Summer 2008). International Affairs Council at Yale: 1–79. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 December 2011. Retrieved 17 April 2011.
  18. "Somaliland profile". BBC News. 14 December 2017. Archived from the original on 23 April 2017. Retrieved 27 January 2018.
  19. Jansen, Dinah (2009). "The Conflict between Self-Determination and Territorial Integrity: the South Ossetian Paradigm". Geopolitics Vs. Global Governance: Reinterpreting International Security. Centre for Foreign Policy Studies, University of Dalhousie: 222–242. ISBN 978-1-896440-61-3. Archived from the original on 19 August 2018. Retrieved 14 December 2017.
  20. "Russia condemned for recognising rebel regions". CNN.com. Cable News Network. 26 August 2008. Archived from the original on 29 August 2008. Retrieved 26 August 2008.
  21. "Transnistria profile – Overview". BBC News. 20 November 2022. Retrieved 11 June 2023.

Denmark

Is it supposed to be the state flag? RelliKtiabkcilK (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@RelliKtiabkcilK: No, it isn't. The implementation was hidden deep, but I rectified it with Special:Diff/1261754281. Favonian (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah yes, that was me, sorry. I changed the flag on the article for the Danish Realm from the state flag to the standard flag. I didn't realise there was a data page I had to edit as well. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I get it. RelliKtiabkcilK (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of rv

@Chipmunkdavis First off, Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays! Anyway, I would like a full justification for your rv. I fully believe that I am following and standardizing the formatting used throughout the article. As for other changes (solving the excessive citations issue for Somaliland, unifying the notes for the top row of both tables, punctuation/grammar, etc.) I will automatically assume that it is alright to add them back if you don't justify reverting those. Cheers mate! HKLionel (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The edit in question was a huge single edit that said cleanup but was doing quite a few things that go beyond cleanup. I saw a few good changes, but what caught my eye and I already mentioned in the edit summary was applying the dependency formatting to autonomous areas. CMD (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh alright, my apologies, I just applied the formatting to entities that had flags under the flag template. I did not know of this beforehand. If that is the only issue, I will add back relevant changes soon. :) HKLionel (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Is there a general list of changes? I noticed the adding of further efns and a few c/es that seemed good. CMD (talk) 16:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I would like to apologize as I am not quite familiar with Misplaced Pages jargon, so I may have misapplied some terms. Anyhow, in my 1st edit:
A. cleaned up links
1. removed nonexistent section link ("summary by country") from dependent territory (line 58)
2. removed redirect to government-in-exile (line 58)
3. corrected section link to coregency by replacing nonexistent section "co-principality" with Andorra (line 84)
4. corrected section link to Commonwealth realm by replacing nonexistent section "relationship between the realms" with interrelationship, fixing the link name accordingly ("Commonwealth realm interrelationship") (line 94)
5. removed redirect to federal states of Austria (line 122)
6. removed redirect to communities, regions, and language areas of Belgium (line 152)
7. removed redirect to federative units of Brazil (line 197)
8. corrected section link to foreign relations of China by replacing nonexistent section "international recognition of the People's Republic of China" with countries without diplomatic relations with the PRC (line 256)
9. removed redirects to Taiwan Area and One China (line 262)
B. added links
1. linked Constitution of Argentina to "Argentine Constitution" (line 94)
2. linked Lithuania (line 152)
3. the note is about the use of Dominion as a name of Canada, so I directly linked it to Name of Canada#Use of Dominion and Dominion#Canada (line 229)
4. linked Bhutan (line 262)
C. c/es
1. rewrote note for formal name of Azerbaijan by aligning it with Azerbaijan#cite note-11 (line 122)
For B2&4, I erroneously linked the country names to their respective articles at first, but I linked them to their respective sections on the list in my second edit in accordance with the rest of the article. That is all the changes I made in my 1st edit, none of which concern the dependency formatting. If you have no objections, I will add these changes back to the article, and summarize the rest of my changes (made in my second edit). HKLionel (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Chinland and Wa State

Chinland and Wa State are pretty much de facto independent states in Myanmar and thus should be included in the list Gavfor (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This list only includes states that either have received recognition or have been assessed by reliable sources as meeting the Montevideo Convention criteria. CMD (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Well then maybe Chinland can’t be included because it doesn’t have relations with other states but the Wa State meets all of the requirements, the Wa State well exists and several sources back that up so thus it has a population, the government claims territory and so this it has an established territory, it has a government and reliable sources have talked about the fact that the Wa State exist so thus reliable source back up the fact it has a government, and Reuters, which is considered to be reliable, claims that the Wa State had relations with China so at least the Wa State should be included Gavfor (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that the main thing is that the Wa State itself does not claim to be a sovereign state, so there's no basis for its inclusion in the list even if it fits the criteria of being a sovereign state (which is debatable as well). HKLionel (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
unless I missed something I’m pretty sure there isn’t anything in the article that states that the state itself has to view itself as independent to be included in the list so I’m pretty sure it’s still technically qualified to be in the list Gavfor (talk) 07:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Under criteria for inclusion, 2nd paragraph: "For the purposes of this list, included are all polities that consider themselves sovereign states (through a declaration of independence or some other means)..."
It is clearly stated in the Wa State article that it recognizes Myanmar's sovereignty over all of its territory, so it fails this criterion. HKLionel (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Categories: