Talk:Aspirant sovereign states

Basque

Does anyone know what Basque separatists want to call their proposed state? I guess it stands between Euskadi and Euskal Herria, but I have no idea. Anyone know? Joffeloff 13:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Euskadi is the name of the Autonomous Community, and Euskal Herria is the name of Euskadi + Navarre + French Basque Country, and this one is the proposed state by Batasuna and another left wing separatist parties. --Fryant 20:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OR

Nearly the whole list can be found either on List of active autonomist and secessionist movements, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, or Nations Without States book (listed in the References section). The only exceptions are Ciskei, Transkei, Bangabhumi, Isratine, Maphilindo, Suvadives, Europe and Acre; all of which have reasons for inclusion on the linked Wiki pages. Therefore I have removed the OR tag. SimonX 03:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This needs renaming

Whatever the viability of this list, as mentioned above, the name itself is quite simply wrong when applied to some of the countries included here. I won't go through them all, but as a Welshman I find it insulting to see my country referred to as a "proposed country" (I'm sure the majority of the English and Scots would feel the same way). Wales is not a polity or sovereign state, but I would not advise anyone to try telling the Welsh people that Wales is merely a "proposed country". That implies that it is not a country. People should learn to differentiate between the terms "country", "nation" and "state" (in the sense of a fully independent sovereign polity). This article needs renaming to something that makes sense and respects established national identities: either that or a good number of the entries - those which are countries rather than regions aspiring to greater self-determination, such as Alsace - should be removed as inappropriate and likely to cause offence. How about Non-sovereign countries and regions? Enaidmawr (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully support the need to rename this article so that countries like Wales, Scotland etc. - which can reliably be referred to as "countries" and "nations" now, but are not recognised "sovereign states" - can validly be included within it. One of the problems in WP is that, at least to editors from the US and to some extent elsewhere, the term "country" is used solely with the meaning of "sovereign state", when that is not the only definition used in the UK. To the UK government and residents, the UK contains four distinct "countries", a point which has been much discussed on other pages. Another point is that the referencing of this article itself needs to be greatly improved, so that it is possible to identify for each area/country the source of the assertion that each is a "proposed country" or whatever terminology is used. Regarding a possible new name, how about "Aspirant sovereign states"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

PS - I've added some tags to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. 'Aspirant sovereign states' or 'Proposed independent states' would be much better. The list is non-encyclopedic rubbish though, and at the very least needs a vigorous pruning. On what criteria are these places included? Some of them aren't even places. Aztlán is a student organisation that seems to be something about the empowerment of Mexicans born in the US; I can't even begin to fathom what North American Technate is doing on this list. If this list is to survive in any form, it needs basic criteria for inclusion, and of course proper sourcing. Without those two elements I'd support its deletion. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the points above, though I'd favour Proposed sovereign states or Proposed independent states. This article does need a lot of work to prove its notability and seperate identity from List of active autonomist and secessionist movements, as it is basically a crossover of that article. It could also do with some text explaining about the concept in general - as at the moment its only a list that could just as easily be a catergory.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see some positive feedback. I deliberately avoided discussing the contents as, frankly, it's a mess. I'd agree with AlasdairGreen27 that if it can't be sorted out it might be best to delete it. If it remains I'd go with renaming it either 'Aspirant sovereign states' or 'Proposed sovereign states' (neither adjective is perfect, but we have to have something). Enaidmawr (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of any further response and in particular the lack of opposition to a move, I've changed the title to Aspirant sovereign states. I can't say I'm entirely happy with it but almost anything is an improvement on the absurd original title. It remains an eclectic unreferenced hotch-potch of an article. Maybe deletion is best after all. Feel free to nominate it! Enaidmawr (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame some of the earlier contributors to the article haven't contributed to this debate - we'll see if they object to the renaming. Yes, it is a hotch-potch, but it's a fascinating one. What it needs is someone to have a go at classifying the entities listed, for instance into the extent of recognition - eg are they recognised to some extent by nation-state governments (such as Wales is), or by other countries, are there active secessionist movements, or are they only recognised by their owners, or are hypothetical. There are big overlaps with other lists, and those need to be minimised. I'd like to spend some time on this (it'd make a change from arguments over "British Isles" or the celticity of Cornwall!), but doubt whether I'll be able to. Has it been flagged up at WP:COUNTRIES? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As the creator of the original stub, I've no problem with renaming the article. I do wonder if there is an academic name we could adopt? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm busy with a number of other things and only really got into this because I objected strongly to seeing Wales (and England and Scotland) listed as "proposed countries" so I can't really commit much time to it, but perhaps we could start by weeding out the non-starters. Aztlán is noted above, and turns out to be M.E.Ch.A. (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán, "Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán"), "a student organization that seeks to promote Chicano unity and empowerment through education and political action [in the USA]". Surely that could go for a start? Quite a few of the other "items" on this list look dubious too. As for the name, I'm open to suggestions. Removing separatist, seccesionist and ethnic movements would be a step in the right direction; they already have a seperate list anyway so unless we have an article on the intended homeland I see no reason for their inclusion here. Shall we start by removing 'Aztlán'? Enaidmawr (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed four: Aztlán, Venda, Far Eastern Republic (1920-22!) and Toro Kingdom. Don't think these will be controversial. If there is no mention of a modern independence movement or for autonomy/sovereign status they should go. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps a better title would be Stateless Nations. Many of these areas can be found in "Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations" by James Minahan CK6569 (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland.

It would seem that NI is the only missing constituent of the UK, should it be in some way concluded as the event of the others becoming nation states would render NI an independant nation? NI has the same, if not more autonomy than Wales and arguably England (Which has none, only majority over total government). Also, on the subject, would an all Ireland state not also qualify as there are movements that wish for such a thing?(82.8.219.105 (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

A United Ireland is already on the list. Discussion of an independant Northern Ireland has and is taking place (see Ulster nationalism), but this is very much a fringe element. Alastairward (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Very very much a fringe element. Are there any parties that seek/support an independent Northern Ireland? It doesn't belong on the list. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of anybody wanting an independant Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody in recent history springs to mind, not even mad old Bob McCartney. Alastairward (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In agreement, United Ireland is the proper entry. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've put my response to this on NI talk. The idea of an independent NI has had serious thought given to it, and there is evidence of people (esp in recent generations) who would like to have a country that doesn't have such inherent British and Irish ties. Certainly younger people are identifying more with NI as a singular identity (ie, their 'country') - which is as you would expect given both the nature of identity (which is as culturally immediate as it is tied to the past), and NI's troubled past. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Article RENAME needed, before this starts to get linked to.

This is a long-standing article (2005), but if it gets well-known and properly linked-to it is going to need a title change. 'Aspirant' has no qualifier, and the too loosely-defined definition of 'separatist group' could mathematically make this article run into thousands of permutations, many of which could cause serious problems, especially if applying to 'any old' entity somebody somewhere has aspirations for.

Also, it should be called a 'List'.

Most of the few links[1] that lead here are REDIRECTS from Proposed country. Unfortunately, 'Proposed country' is an even worse title, as the definition for 'country' is very broad (and often causes problems), unlike 'sovereign state' which is unambiguous.

Rather than risk this article getting out of hand, I suggest polling for a RENAME to something , merging the proposed country REDIRECT into it, and then simply allowing the list to develop over time if and when people choose to add to it. I mean - is this really worth wasting energy arguing about, when we can find a title that suits us all?

I think we should use the word 'nations'. It is even broader than 'country' (which would prevent the arguments), but the defining factors it has will preclude the possibility of more fanciful and ambitious combinations.

I think it will be useful to prepare a foolproof argument to show that Northern Ireland is unquestionably a nation, and I'll present one here (a more sensible place than at NI at present, which is currently arguing over using 'country'). Arguing against the appellation 'country' is one thing, but to deny someone's actual 'nationhood' is surely a Human Rights issue, and something that should NOT be tolerated on Wikipedia. Any admins reading, please take note of this - the comment "Wales (etc) is not a nation" is so close to xenophobia, it has to be the easiest of things to clamp down on. The idea of Wikipedia being about 'total free speech' is a myth - time and again it shows it has lines it is prepared to protect.

One day the work on List of nations will no-doubt return, and in a sense this is a presence that partly fills the vacuum. If a List of nations did exist there would be arguments for deletion of this, although it would surely be argued that not all nations call for sovereignty.

Poll 1: List of nations with calls for sovereignty

• support - It says what it is on the 'tin'. As long as the entity is a nation, and a significant element calls for sovereignty (proved in Talk if need be), who cares who's in the list? Energy is better spent elsewhere. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - This title presupposes that those listed can be unambiguously described as "nations", which is not necessarily the case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - "calls" from whom? and "nation" by whose meassure? There doesn't seem to be any notability. I, here and now, call for a sovereign Empire of Swansea nation. Lets add it. I'll start an activist blog, if thats the inclusion barrier. Non encyclopedic article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I understand the concerns here, but the problem is that if there in no change the article stays the same. I'll open a poll on deleting it as it sounds like this could be what you'd rather see(?), and it is an option I'd support myself (along with this change). If we ever get a 'List of nations' perhaps it would make more sense then. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Poll 2: List of proposed sovereign states

• Support - probably clearer than "Aspirant...", and avoids preconceptions over the concept of "nation". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - although titled as List of proposed sovereign states it would describe the article better. Daicaregos (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree - amended title above. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - same reason as above "proposed" by whom? There doesn't seem to be any notability for an article such as this. The various article on "nationalism" and nationalist movements cover it already. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - The problem for me is that 'Proposed' is problematic in the same way 'Aspirant' is - it give an impression of the 'call' being something 'official', and something of a nationally-held movement too. This title would obviously be fitting where all this is clearly the case, but it won't always be so clear. Are fringe groups allowed in the list? And what constitutes 'fringe' regarding nationalism anyway? Remember the amount of 'political entities' across the world that people might want to put in here - there are more than any of us can call. I also think at very best any ambiguity gives credence to nationalism, which is is always just one side of a story, and Wikipedia is so often an irresistable opportunity for people to propagate their nationalist bias. For me, Wales (for example), comfortably belongs in a "with calls for" list, but I would be uncomfortable with it in a 'proposed' list, until heard that a date was set for a referendum at least. And Wales being both peaceful and an actual country makes it one of the less contentious examples. Northern Ireland (to get back to the original question) can, in my opinion, be in a "calls for" list (as some people want to create something completely new), but putting it in a 'Proposed' list would surely be seen by many editors as overplaying a call for independence - which would place NI neither back in the Republic, nor remaining in Britain. Leaving entities out can be just as problematic as putting them in, as they notoriously get compared with similar cases with similar situations, and leaving something out seems to show a bias against it. I think it's best to make the title as free of problematic restrictions as possible, allow it to fill up naturally, and leave people to do their own research regarding the popularity of the various 'calls'. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Poll 3 - delete article

• support - I also support deleting the article. I don't think it is one that Wikipedia is crying out for, and perhaps it could come back if we ever get a 'List of nations'. Until then it could always be problematic, especially under the current title (or something too similar to it). Matt Lewis (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• support — either that or just redirect the title to the article nationalism. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Out of interest, who here has suggested that "Wales (etc) is not a nation"? - I can't find that suggested anywhere. "Energy is better spent elsewhere" - yes indeed, and the title of this article / list is the least of our worries. Not many people spend any time on this page - it's hardly wasting energy. If anyone is really serious about cleaning up this article they should start by taking out all of those listed which are not, or not close to being, "aspiring sovereign states", and at the same time add references for those which are. Regarding the title, changing to "nations" or "countries" would greatly increase the problem of what should be included, not reduce it - "Nation of Islam", "West Country", etc. I'm not necessarily opposed to another move to List of nations with calls for sovereignty, but I'm not convinced it's much better than the current title - not that it matters very much either way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone came close on Countries of the UK arguing over 'Welsh (etc) nationals' (which became 'people' to avoid confusion), and its been done on Wales in the past too, although succesfully argued against. I've always felt strongly about nationhood and would like to see a clear line (I did a lot of work on anthems last year, and have an interest in them). I think work does need to be done here, but yes - when we get the title right people need not fuss about this at all. I'm just trying to nip certain things in the bud, now you've rightly brought some attention (inc mine) to it. Wikipedia is full of these articles people hardly know about.Matt Lewis (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a significant difference between definitions of "national" as between deriving from "nationhood" and "nationality", of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

'Nationals' used in the sense of 'citizens' is the only ambiguous use I can think of, because it tends to be used for just citizens of a sovereign country, although not without exception I'm sure. The word 'nation' has always been toyed with on WP, but usually survives politicised promotions to sovereignty if there is enough attention around to argue sense (ie not always in these obscure articles). It is being argued at present on WP that there is no distinct Northern Irish national identity, so it cannot be called a nation or country. My point is that NI (as an example) is a nation by any definition - if we argue against that it is too close to denying its fundamental right to exist.

IMO (and this is my rationale for Northern Ireland being a nation with a country underneath it), to deny young people who wish to place the history of the Troubles behind them (and even - dare i say it – any restrictions of or that came with a religious background) - to deny them a country of their own to live in, and believe in, and build, to have a future in, to have children in.. who really would want do that? Surely we should leave their future in peace. If anyone needs an entirely singular country under their feet it’s the people of Northern Ireland. 88 years is a long time in 20C terms, and covers a number of generations – how many do people need? A new country, it seems clear to me, is what the British created in 1921, but it is simply a moot point now and no longer an argument: NI is in 2009 a growing country with a seriously devolved ‘national assembly’, containing modern people who identify with it without prejudice. People have settled there for years too - what of them, and their children who were born there? Fighting all this is a tragically backward thing to do. It seems to me that the more intensely people feel about promoting and protecting their own nationhood, the less they are able to leave other people's alone. The name ‘Northern Ireland’ relates to the island, and causes little offence in itself. Why not just let the country live?

The same goes for any similar national identity. Country status is one thing, but nationhood is another – and it is a liberty issue to deny it someone when feeling for it can be easily verified.

This article isn't getting much interest (or any immediate anyway), so I’ll just keep the above poll open, and if no one joins in at some point I’ll be bold and rename (it must be a List at very least, and the term ‘aspirant sovereign states’ has no common use surely.) Matt Lewis (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to discuss the particular NI situation on this page, but the opinion that supporting a particular description of NI on WP pages equates to "denying its fundamental right to exist" seems to me to be a wholly unjustified view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that "supporting a particular description equates to denying NI's right to exist". I said "denying that NI is a nation" comes too close to that, and so the word 'nation' needs to be better used, defined and protected.

Why did you cross-article advertise the above section on Northen Ireland if it wasn't for comment? I'm giving my own feelings on this article (with NI used as an example of a country that could be included) - so I'm basically doing what you asked I think. I admit I was at the time trying to keep out of NI Talk itself, but I've commented at NI now, while giving my preference to some suggestions for a new opening line on 'country' in the UK country articles.

I put a lot of work into envisioning a workable future for nation/country lists on Wikipedia last year (often in these type of articles), and I put a lot of work into national anthems, and especially List of national anthems too - which was REDIRECTed by someone passing by (without any debate) to List of anthems of UN member states when I was not editing on Wikipedia. A number of classic national anthems where immediately lost in the process. The root word 'nation' needs to be properly used and protected on Wikipedia - that is what I am trying to get across. So much time and space is wasted on Wikipedia arguing over definitions of what should be clearly-defined 'core' terms in a serious encyclopedia. The non-uniformity of articles like this don't help reduce that wasted time imo. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just pointing out that I linked to the thread titled Northern Ireland up above; you then started a new much wider-ranging thread, and used it to talk about NI... Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course - but in doing so you pointed out a very contentious article! My response was to propose a change to the title, partly due to the problems I see arising from adding NI to the list as it stands. I'd probably put it up for deletion if the title isn't changed, as I really don't think it is good for Wikipedia to have ambiguous articles like this floating around. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If ridiculous and insignificant things like "Cornwall", "Galicia", "Tyrol" and "Occitania" are on then I don't see why Northern Ireland shouldn't be (see Ulster nationalism). This article is ultra-relativism to the extreme, from top to bottom. By what measure? I'm not sure we even need this article to begin with. Most of these are about as likely as the "Republic of Cork" of the "Republic of Manchester". - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to first establish a criterion for what this page is to represent. If our goal is to list all the areas that could become sovereign nations then I think that is better suited for the secession movement list. I also don’t think this page should be used for nationality homelands unless we plan to create the list of stateless nations. There is already a list of nationalities page. I feel that a line must be drawn first on what would be on the page before we rename it. Personally, I would call for a page that only lists the areas with quasi-independence, a strong national identity separate from the sovereign state, and have a large percentage seeking outright independence or more recognition on a global scale, not just inside the sovereign state. There is very little support for an Independent Southern USA, but a large support for an Independent Basque Country. CK6569 (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no List of nations 'list' on Wikipedia - it used to REDIRECT to List of sovereign states, now it REDIRECTS to the Lists of nations disam page. I'd rather see this particular list deleted rather than be changed into something that will bring constant arguments, and generally muddy the subject on Wikipedia even more. I think forcing our definition of "quasi independence" could do that. Anything too defined becomes instantly exclusionist. For me, either this list is very open (eg based on nations with 'calls' for independence), or it is simply untennable and should go. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I was refering to the Lists of people by nationality page CK6569 (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus - where do these come from?? That list has had 'English' in its "By ethnicity" section since 2006! I find it painfully embarrassing, as I've spent so much of my time on this 'encyclopedia'. Not one has changed it, of course, for the same reason that no discussion exists on its Talk page - nobody knows these crazy lists exist! Matt Lewis (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The article name is the key here. None of those proposed so far captures the aim of this article, which seems to be to list nations with independence movements, and those seeking further autonomy. There is an article entitled List of active autonomist and secessionist movements and a page rename to List of nations with autonomist and secessionist movements for this article would complement it well. A real List of nations is for another day. Daicaregos (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposals above regarding a "nation". We surely should have in mind here the proposed independence or separatism of a particular territory. This is identifiable. Otherwise we get into all manner of muddy waters regarding self government for e.g. the Aborigines, who, as far as I am aware, do not in any broad sense claim the right to their own state. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I'm not stuck on any particular title, but feel that those proposed thus far do not describe the content correctly. Do you have a suggestion for an apt page name? Daicaregos (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Stateless nation is a recognised term, and that article could surely be complemented by List of stateless nations - see thread below (Merger proposal - another suggestion). Those making no specific territorial claims could be a subset of that list. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't quite see where you want to carry the ball to with that post Ghmyrtle. To answer Daicaregos, I'd say that if the existing list is to survive in any form, it should have to be something like "List of non-independent territories for which there is a substantial independence movement". I'm aware that the wording is not ideal (it's very long) but that is the essence of the matter that must be conveyed via the title. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

e/c I can see that page title being the cause of early editor retirements due to stress - caused not least from attempting to define 'substantial' and fending off all-comers who don't meet the arbitrary criteria ;} "Stateless nation" has legs, though (love that EU map). Daicaregos (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the fact it's a lot longer, what is the substantive difference between your suggestion and mine? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If, as I think you are, you're referring to 'List of proposed sovereign states', not much, except that my proposal has the inestimable advantage of cutting out the crap and the quixotic. Perhaps a blend of the two suggestions might be suitable? Whatever title we finally land upon, I'm actually more interested in weeding out the appalling content of the current list, as discussed a year or so ago. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually meant List of stateless nations, but List of proposed sovereign states is also better than the current wording. As well as getting rid of the rubbish in this list, there is a need to reduce overlap and maximise consistency with other lists, such as List of active autonomist and secessionist movements which I hadn't noticed until today. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. The notions of "stateless nations" and "proposed sovereign states" are utterly different. There may be overlaps from case to case, but sorry, the two are quite separate. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Different" yes, "utterly different" perhaps not, as clearly there are very substantial overlaps. Perhaps it would help if you could indicate which different lists you think should exist, and how your suggestions relate to existing WP lists and articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Simply off the top of my head, the Maoris and Aborigines are stateless nations of people without associated proposals of independent statehood. As are numerous ethnic groups within Russia, simply for example. My understanding is that this list should be about e.g. Scotland, Kosovo or Kurdistan. Regarding other WP articles, I'd prefer to confine myself to discussing this article and its best title.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I must say that's disappointingly unhelpful - in my view it's important to achieve some logic and consistency across several lists, not concentrate on just one. Your understanding of what this list "should" be about isn't really relevant, unless it's shared and agreed with other editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of "List of non-independent territories for which there is a substantial independence movement", but I emphasize the "substantial" part. They differ from stateless nations in part that not all stateless nations seek true independence. Some, like the Sami, are content with the autonomy they currently have. The do not seek independence, but they are a nation without a state. We could move the list to the self-determination page. Call it "List of nations seeking sovereign self-determination" or whatever. I really think we are looking for those nations that want global recognition. Most stateless nations would be satisfied with cultural protection under the sovereign state's law CK6569 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The content of a "List of non-independent territories for which there is a substantial independence movement" would surely be the same as List of active autonomist and secessionist movements, just structured differently. There is also [[Category:Secessionist organizations]]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the contents would be the same, surely you don't think Cascadia is a "substantial independence movement". CK6569 (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There should be no edits being done on the basis of conflating the terms 'stateless nations' with 'proposed sovereign states.' Cajuns for example are a well established nation -- legally recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States -- and located in Acadiana -- an officially recognized geographical area with its own national flag, language, culture. However, no one would suggest that Cajuns are seeking an independent sovereign state.Jstanierm (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Canadian FNs

Noting the presence of Haida Gwaii and Nuxalk on the list, it's worth noting that many aboriginal people in Canada and certain governments assert unsurrendered sovereignty in addition to the Haida and Nuxalk (the Nuxalk name for their territory, also, is somewhat different, I'd have to dig around to find it though). Most of the nations represented by the Union of BC Indian Chiefs are among those who reject surrender of sovereignty and are therefore staying outside the BC Treaty Process, which seeks to extinguish aboriginal title/sovereignty in its settlements; in many cases it's hard to say if the official government's position is along these lines, or whether it's popular sentiment within those nations; the Lil'wat Nation government is one of the co-hosts of the Olympics but I know that there is a large faction of that group, using the same name, who insist that their country is sovereign; other St'at'imc groups including the Lillooet Tribal Council have the same position, and there are dozens of other examples around BC; even when there is some kind of agreement such as the Xeni Gwet'in agreement concerning Tsy?los Provincial Park and other lands, i.e. an agreement with provincial and federal governments, they still maintain their sovereignty as a principle; two that should definitely be added are the Gitxsan and Wet'su-wet'en who jointly pressed the Delgamuukw case, and who assert a historical Gitxsan-Wet'su-wet'en Confederacy. In both those cases, as in others, the Indian Act-mandated band government is a proxy for the traditional governments; which are known as the Hereditary Chiefs of the Gitxsan and Hereditary Chiefs of the Wet'su-wet'en; I don't know their respective names for their territory or would add these to the list. It's complicated and often very POV to describe, but I just wanted to note this issue re the potential inclusion of other aboriginal nations; who btw aren't "aspirant", they're not wanting sovereignty, they assert they already have it.Skookum1 (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal - another suggestion

There is already an article at Stateless nation, and there is a useful source with its own article, Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations. That latter article includes a lengthy list of the "stateless nations" referenced in the book. I haven't compared it with the list in this article, but obviously there is a big overlap. What I suggest now is that:

1. The list is cut from that article The article on Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations be merged into this article
2. It is added to this article, with Overlaps are removed and the "nations" from that list referenced from that source book
3. Other "nations" which are now in this article list, but not the other list, have tags added for a period so that sources can be found - or deleted if not
4. This article be renamed List of stateless nations.

What do you think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think people will be concerned about using someone else's content. Those kind of book titles are often meant to be provocative too (not necessarily in a negative way) - the author himself might not see them all as nations. If this title was changed to "List of nations with calls for sovereignty" you could copy them in in a rearranged way I suppose (providing they do all have 'calls'). But 'List of stateless nations' could be seen as too close to the book you are borrowing them from (and the book seems pretty conclusive - I doubt anything is here that isn't there). Matt Lewis (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Stateless nation" is a neutral and well-used term - for example here. (Take a look - you and Yorkshirian will love it...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course, but in the same context? 20:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

RE your eurominority.org example ("Peoples in search of freedom"!!), I would hardly call it neutral! It takes the view that it is better to have more countries in the world than less (not at all a neutral position), and equates nationalism with a 'fight' for freedom. Their map spells Iceland "Island" too! It's not a bright site. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See is:Island, I think... Well, that site was perhaps not the best example, but there are others - [2], for instance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that Iceland was Island (!) - not a good example though, your right. The other isn't either, as the context is in its title - "Plurinational democracy: stateless nations in a post-sovereignty era". I do know the term is often used, but I also know you could run into problems merging the books data with such a similar title, as I've run into issues into the past myself when I've used 'outside' data, against people who wouldn't budge. I don't see what's wrong with my proposed title anyway, it might even work for you here. 'Stateless nations' could be read in so many ways (without a state, robbed of a state, desiring a state) - why bother being ambiguous when you don't have to be? And in retrospect, (despite my first poll) I think it could be wise to develop the nation issue first anyway, and that deletion may be a better option here. 21:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a long-established page, with many editors over the years. I'd certainly oppose any hasty moves to delete it, but it should be possible to get a consensus over improving it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing links to it, and 200 edits over over 4 years isn't as much as it looks considering the revert edits and the IPs. There's was only one section in Talk until someone renamed it to its current title in Jan this year (from proposed country - was that really established?) - to a title he wasn't altogether happy with, after also considering deletion. And then nothing again until an IP mention Northern Ireland! All the old editors had clearly abandoned it (if they were ever consistently here), or are no longer editing on Wikipedia. I do agree that consensus can be found, but this is in no way an established article - it's just an old article, like literally countless other entirely unknown flotsam on Wikipedia. An uncontroversial title is certainly needed, or its got to go I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I do agree there's a lot of rubbish in here that needs to be taken out, but some of your earlier statements suggested to me that you wanted any mention of "stateless nations" (or similar terminology) taken out as being trivial or unencyclopedic. In fact, there is ample evidence that statelessness (or whatever you want to call it) is an important political issue globally, and there are refs to back that up. If we can agree on that principle, we can move forward as to the best form of an article - one which lists the entities covered by the Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations or which can be referenced from other WP:RS. To do that, I still think that we should use the list in that article as the basis, bring it over here, delete any from this list which are not referenced, and rename this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion in the above comment section between me and Ghmyrtle - statelessness is not the same as seeking a state. Only Wikipedia could confuse the two. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)