Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Input requested

IPs have been shifting around the states at the top of Caucasus for a bit lately. At one point NKR was under Armenia, at another it was under Azerbaijan with an Azerbaijani flag. South Ossetia has been deleted now and then. I asked at RfPP for protection, but the admin said to get 3Os instead, no doubt because one IP has stuck around. Third opinions on our discussion welcome at Talk:Caucasus#Abkhazia, Karabakh. CMD (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Recognized by at least one/ not recognized by at least one

The two things are basically the same (one state, but not all states) so it should be merged. 194.150.65.8 (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Those divisions aren't in this article. We have: Unrecognized; Non-UN recognized only by non-UN; Non-UN recognized by some UN; and UN unrecognized by some UN. The numbers aren't considered in any section. --Golbez (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestine

it has now the recognition as UN Observer State. we can't put it in the same place with a totally non member states 3bdulelah (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure we can. It's not a member state. Observer mission or observer state, it's still only an observer and thus not a member of the body. --Golbez (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

People here are thinking UN is some sort of important atlas?

Why we have a separated category for "Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members" and "Partially unrecognised UN member states"? UN is not some sort of "very good atlas", its just some sort of organization that countries MAY want/try to join. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.189.95 (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Trying to explain that for a while - most recently here, but also in previous discussion on that page such as here, here and here. This editing phenomena can be described as "UN membership POV" - and it's ironic that actually there are official sources showing that the UN itself doesn't agree with the notion that it's a gatekeeper of statehood, sovereignty, acceptance, importance or what not. Japinderum (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria for this page and several others was the result of a multiyear discussion which can be found in the archives of the list of soveriegn states page. I personally was in the minority and against using UN membership as a classification criteria, and instead favoured whether a state is recognized diplomaticly by a majority of otherstates as the determining factor, but i was in the minority. Your welcome to try to change people's minds about it, but the system in use now has fairly solid grounds after going through several rounds of mediation, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I will check the place you said to see if there is any discussion there, if dont find it I will ask here back for location of it. Also unlike japinderum I made an question, I am not trying to change the article (because I may even be wrong), I was just curious about it.187.58.190.246 (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

US recognition of North Korea

Along with Japan and South Korea, the United States also appears not to recognise North Korea. The article North Korea–United States relations states that the US has never recognised North Korea, and this article states that, as of 2004 when it was written, the US did not recognise North Korea, and a 2012 article states that the two countries remain technically at war and strongly suggests the US still doesn't recognise North Korea. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the U.S. and North Korea were never technically at war to begin with (the last declaration of war by the U.S. was in 1942), they could not still, from the U.S. point of view, still technically be at war, could they? It was the UN who was handling that, and the UN lacks the capability to declare war. I'm would like for that guy, a Korea fellow at the CFR, to explain what he means by being technically in a war that was never technically declared. But that's just my original research. --Golbez (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked this question previously here, but ultimately found some pretty convincing evidence that they do recognize North Korea. Particularly this: "Yes, [Secretary of State] Colin Powell and the administration have gone out of their way on several occasions since early November to say explicitly, “We recognize North Korea’s sovereignty.”" [1] and this: "The U.S. recognizes North Korea as a sovereign state and doesn't plan to attack the communist nation, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said." [2] TDL (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah ok, yeah I had a look at the earlier discussion and it seems pretty convincing that the US does recognise North Korea (although 'diplomatic recognition' is a pretty abstract concept in any case, particularly in situations like this where normal diplomatic relations don't exist). With regards to the "technically at war" quote it seems pretty clear that this is a factual mistake by the writer. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

arguably a contemporary example

[3] edit changed "The recognition of the State of Palestine by over one hundred states is a contemporary example." to "The recognition of the State of Palestine by over one hundred states is arguably a contemporary example."

What's arguable here? There are plenty of sources, including 2013 ones, stating that those territories are occupied by Israel. Japinderum (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That's great, but doesn't address the issue at hand of whether Palestine meets the declarative criteria for statehood. This is a question that is far more complicated that the oversimplifications you like to put forward. See here for example: "The question of whether a Palestinian state exists, as a question of fact, is the subject of disagreement." and "On one hand, in the Gaza Strip, there is at least a regime that theoretically meets the conditions of the Montevideo Convention and appears to be essentially independent." and "It is likely that the Palestinian Authority, at least in Area A (the areas in which the Palestinian Authority has full responsibility for internal security, public order, and civil affairs), also meets the aforementioned conditions of independence." You can also look at [4]: "In 2007, Vaughan Lowe opined that Palestine met the criteria for statehood as of that date." I suggest we just remove Palestine from the list entirely because it's far too complicated a situation to fit into a list of clearcut examples. TDL (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Should I point you to the plenty of sources about Israel control/occupation? Nobody questions that for the West Bank and for Gaza only Israel questions it (but again, Hamas is not part of SoP, so that's a moot point). The paragraph we discuss here is not about "who meets the declarative criteria for statehood", but about "entities which do not have control over any territory or..., but have been recognised to exist de jure as sovereign entities by at least one other state." - SoP territory is under Israel (or Israel and Hamas) control and SoP is recognized by at least one other state, so it clearly fits the situation described in the first sentence. And as the only contemporary example it's quite notable and relevant. Japinderum (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please do show me a single source that says Palestine does "not have control over any territory". And no, a source that says that Israel controls/occupies Palestine is not sufficient to back up this claim. TDL (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You understand that here "any" territory doesn't include embassies and consulates, but permanently populated territories; and "control" doesn't mean "per diplomatic conventions for embassies and consulates", but is in the sense related to statehood and sovereignty - "sovereign control" (unobstructed by foreign influence - unlike colonies, dependencies, sub-federal subjects, local administrations under foreign military occupation, etc.), "ultimate control" (as per international conventions for who's a "controlling power ultimately responsible" - for genocides and such issues), etc. So, "sources that say that Israel controls/occupies Palestine" are exactly those you're looking for. Over what permanently populated territory SoP has ultimate sovereign control? Japinderum (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is all very interesting OR, however the question remains. Can you show me a single source that says: Palestine "do not have control over any territory"? TDL (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not OR, but explanation what the sentence means. I can show you many sources that all of these territories are controlled by Israel. You said you don't want those sources, that's why I explained to you what "control" and "any territory" refers to and that the meaning of "control" utilized in that sentence precludes the possibility of both Israel and SoP having control. Besides, it's PNA that's allowed by Israel (the controlling power) to perform some actions in Areas A/B - not SoP. What do you disagree with? Japinderum (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I want a source which actually supports the text that is written, not your OR interpretation of it. So please, show me a source which says Palestine does "not have control over any territory". If you can't support this claim, I'll go ahead and remove this sentence. TDL (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat, disagreed arguing that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had already declared independence in 1988. "Now we need real independence, not a declaration. We need real independence by ending the occupation. We are not Kosovo. We are under Israeli occupation and for independence we need to acquire independence", Israel remains in charge of territories, the state of Palestine is occupied, PA official said and plenty more. Which is the territory you think that SoP controls? Japinderum (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Those sources say lots of things, but they certainly don't say that Palestine does "not have control over any territory". TDL (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

One more, Israel, which exercises military rule over the Palestinian territories. So, what's the "any" territory that SoP controls? Japinderum (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's another interesting one: "the mountains of Galilee constitute the highest part of Israel, reaching an elevation of 3,963 feet". But back on topic, have you found any sources which say that "Palestine does not have control over any territory"? TDL (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all of those right above showing that Israel controls all of the territory, so SoP controls none. You have no sources about SoP controlling any territory, do you? Japinderum (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, those sources don't say Israel controls all of the territory. And even if you did, the conclusion you draw from that ("so SoP controls none") which isn't stated in any of the sources, is OR. Try again. Also, see WP:BURDEN. I'ts not my responsibility to prove your claim false. TDL (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but if I look at the structure of the paragraph, the first sentence is: "There are also entities which do not have control over any territory or do not unequivocally meet the declarative criteria for statehood but have been recognised to exist de jure as sovereign entities by at least one other state". An example in that case thus would be an example of an "entities which do not have control over any territory or do not unequivocally meet the declarative criteria for statehood but have been recognised to exist de jure as sovereign entities by at least one other state". This is true if:

• State of Palestine does not have control over any territory (clause 1) or
• State of Palestine does not unequivocally meet the declarative criteria for statehood (clause 2)

... but have been recognised to exist de jure as sovereign entities by at least one other state

Now both of you are debating about point one, but isn't it clear that point two is valid (SoP doesn't unequivocally meet declarative statehood criteria)?, so SoP is an example of the statement in the first sentence? Whether SoP does control its area is up to debate (it's not unequivocally so), so the sentence only requires proof for "not unequivocably" meeting that requirement of statehood, which clearly has been passed. "Not Unequivocably" and "arguably" (suggesting we can still argue about the "not equivocably" part) are thus mutually exclusive in this context L.tak (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Whichever clause they're listed under, it needs to be sourced. It's not obvious to me that they don't meet the declarative theory of statehood as defined by this article: a defined territory; a permanent population; a government; a capacity to enter into relations with other states. I fail to see how their could be any significant ambiguity over their passing all these criteria, so the only clause they might satisfy is number one. Which part of the criteria do you think their is ambiguity over? TDL (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"unambiguously control of territory"; depending on the definition this is, or is not within the control of the State of Palestine. So that is not unambiguous... (if we remove unambiguous from the first sentence; we can add arguably in the second of course...) L.tak (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

But that's not one of the criteria this article lists in its definition of the declarative criteria for statehood. Control of territory is only covered by clause number one, which doesn't contain an "unequivocally". TDL (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I gave you multiple sources above (and in the Occupied Palestinian Territory you can find plenty more) that Israel is the controlling power. Not the PNA, and certainly not SoP. There are also plenty of sources (Israeli-POVed) stating "SoP does not exist", "Palestine is not a state", etc. Do you have a source about a territory controlled by SoP? Any territory? Control, unhampered by Israel ("full", "sovereign", "ultimate")?

I agree with L.tak that having both "unequivocally" and "arguably" is redundant and I think we should remove "arguably". Even if there is a SoP controlled territory (which I haven't seen a source for), for sure it's not "unequivocally" meeting the criteria. For example: "The report, written by a special Security Council committee and obtained by CNN, was the result of seven weeks of meetings. It details myriad disagreements between the council members on whether Palestine fulfills the requirements set forth in the U.N. charter for members countries."[5]. So, SoP falls in either or both parts of the sentence. Japinderum (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

TDL, If you mean by "clause 1", 1 of the clauses of declarative statehood, then I agree that that clause should be satisfied, for an entity to be "a state" by that theory. However, if we write that in certain cases the criteria are not unequivocally met, the "burdon of proof" becomes much lower then without the "unequivocally", as we don't have to be definite.

If you mean by "clause 1", the first part of the sentence that we have, then indeed that condition is (IMO) not met. However for a suitable example entity, that clause does not have to be met, as examples need to handle either of the two parts of the sentence (as they are connected via an OR-statement). Could you indicate what reasoning you meant; and if you disagree with my analysis? L.tak (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this is getting quite confusing. By clause I mean which half of the sentence, ie which branch of the OR statement, the state qualifies under. (I've added this to your comment above for clarity, feel free to revert if this refactoring bothers you.)

If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that Palestine qualifies under clause 2. But using our definition of the declarative criteria for statehood, clause 2 is valid only if Palestine does not "unequivocally" meet one of the following criteria: "a defined territory; a permanent population; a government; a capacity to enter into relations with other states". Control of territory isn't covered by our definition of declarative criteria for statehood and thus clause 2. Which of these 4 criteria do you think there is doubt about Palestine passing? TDL (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's why there is the word "unequivocally", so that we avoid giving a definite judgments ourselves. So, you don't argue that SoP controls territory, but that it doesn't need to control it, but only to claim it, is that so? I disagree and at Israel UN membership application criteria discussion (among other sources about what a sovereign state is, etc.) you can see that "a defined territory" and "a government" doesn't mean "a government claiming some territory without controlling it" and that control on the ground is what counts, not claims. Otherwise all GiEs and Micronations would've been included in the article along Somaliland as they all claim some territory, have governments and no recognition. Japinderum (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So, keeping in mind the above and 08:26, 22 January 2013 and 10:08, 28 January 2013, I propose to remove "arguably". TDL, do you still disagree? Japinderum (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Japinderun that the part "is not unequivocably meeting declarative statehood criteria" stems from the fact that we have to link it to the "state of Palestine" (as it was declared). We could argue whether that state has a government (or is the government) of Palestine/Palestinian territory, if the government functions are performed by the Palestinian Authorities (in part). Can we think of a rephrase of this example? L.tak (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

well the problem may even be ita defined territory; a permanent population; a government; a capacity to enter into relations with other states

The government of SoP is the PLO-EC, not the PNA (see sources at SoP article). And as Israel controls all of the territory (see sources above 06:59, 29 January 2013, 08:26, 22 January 2013 and Occupied Palestinian Territory, etc.) neither PNA nor SoP control any territory. But we don't need to go in such details in the sentence we discuss - details can go in Palestine and/or Israel entries in the list below. Here we argue about the redundant "unequivocally" and "arguably". No need for the latter. Japinderum (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Japinderum, all of this is OR. If you think that Palestine "do not unequivocally meet the declarative criteria for statehood", then show me a single source that says that. If you think Palestine "do not have control over any territory" (note the lack of an unequivocally) then show me a single source which says that. Despite your claims, your sources don't say that Israel controls all of the territory. And even if they did, the conclusion you draw from that ("so SoP controls none") which isn't stated in any of the sources, is OR. I've shown you sources above which argue that Palestine meets the criteria. Please support your POV with a source. TDL (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

TDL, you request a negative proof, but haven't provided any positive proof either. Where is your source about SoP controlling a territory? I provided you multiple sources about Israel controlling all of the territory (I don't understand what do you mean by "sources don't say so". They say "We are under Israeli occupation and for independence we need to acquire independence", Israel remains in charge of territories, the state of Palestine is occupied, PA official said", "Israel, which exercises military rule over the Palestinian territories", quite clear, where do you see a discrepancy). "So SoP controls none" comes directly from that just like from "The wall is black" comes "so it's not white". You provided sources about arguably meeting the criteria, and that falls in line with the "unequivocally". There are plenty of sources (for example at 08:15, 23 January 2013) about SoP not meeting the criteria (also arguably) and those also fall in line with "unequivocally". Japinderum (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As I've advised you previously, you need to read WP:BURDEN. It's not my responsibility to prove that your WP:OR is incorrect. If you want to include content, you need to provide sources. None of your sources say that Israel controls all of Palestine. Hell, you just added text that says "its interior and Egypt portion of the land border are under Hamas control". The question of "independence" is another matter entirely. And quoting partisans in the matter really isn't helpful. I'm sure Israel politicians will tell you that they aren't occupying Palestine. You need analysis by neutral third parties.

Your example of "walls" can act as an excellent demonstration of what OR is. So far, you've provided a source which says "some of the wall is black". Then you use this to cite "the wall has no red brick". You haven't provided sources that say Israel occupies all of Palestine. And even if you did, Israel occupying Palestine isn't necessarily mutually exclusive to Palestine controlling territory. Occupation can be of varying degrees.

Finally, the source you quote about Palestine satisfying the criteria of statehood says: "myriad disagreements between the council members on whether Palestine fulfills the requirements set forth in the U.N. charter for members countries" whereas the article says "do not unequivocally meet the declarative criteria for statehood". The UN charter requirements are not necessarily the same as our definition of the declarative theory of statehood. If you wanted to say that Palestine arguable doesn't meet the requirements of the UN Charter, then this source would be excellent for that. However, that's obviously not what the article says.

I'm not opposed to including the line about Palestine, but it needs to be sourced. And adding random citations at the end of the sentence doesn't make it sourced. Find a source which says either: Palestine "do not unequivocally meet the declarative criteria for statehood" or "do not have control over any territory". TDL (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"Control" in the statehood/sovereignty context, e.g. "controlling power", "responsible power for purposes of international law" (e.g. Geneva Conventions). Hamas/PNA have "control" only in those policy fields and areas where the controlling power/occupier/etc. allows them. "Israel occupying Palestine isn't necessarily mutually exclusive to Palestine controlling territory". And here by "Palestine" you also refer to the PNA - an entity that's still different from SoP (that the sentence is about).

"You haven't provided sources that say Israel occupies all of Palestine." - on the contrary - the sources clearly point that out. It seems you emphasis the "all" word. Yes, the sources don't bother to say "all of Palestine" when they can simply say "Palestine". I asked you before - what part of Palestine isn't occupied by Israel? For example see the non-partisan, third party opinion about Gaza (that you could've found at the wikilinked in the footnote Occupied Palestinian Territory): UN special rapporteur: "Israel remains an occupying Power in respect of Gaza." (referring to the post-disengagement situation). If you want to add details about Israel disputing such assessments - OK, do it.

"UN charter requirements are not necessarily the same as our definition", but one of the UN requirements is statehood. Disagreement about that is closely related to not unequivocally meeting the declarative criteria for statehood, but if you so insist I'll remove that source or rephrase accordingly.

If you do reverts you should revert to the status quo or another consensus redaction, not delete along with my addition other content. The sources presented point out that SoP territory is under Israel control/occupation. WP:BURDEN is on you to present source about SoP having control over any territory, unhampered by Israel. Japinderum (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, before citing WP:Burden, you really should take the time to read it since you clearly don't understand it's point. Since you can't be bothered to, I'll quote the relevant bit: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."

And once again, no one is impressed by your OR. Source your opinions, or they don't belong in the article. TDL (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

And furthermore, it's pretty hilarious that you previously argued the exact opposite point: "UN criteria are not the same with those of the Declarative/Constitutive theories". And yet now you're arguing that Palestine doesn't meet the declarative criteria for statehood since there is debate over whether they fulfill the requirements of the UN. You can't change your argument ever time it doesn't support your POV. TDL (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sultanate of Sulu

Amazingly it appears the sultanate of sulu now meets the criteria for inclusion, it has siezed control of a permanantly inhabited place and is reasserting its independent soveriegnty over the area (its actions have been disavowed by the phillipines, but are technically allowed under the agreement the sultanate signed with the philippines which states that if the phillipines do not attempt to assert the sultanates claim they may do so independently).XavierGreen (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• First – is the Sultanat of Sulu proclamed its independence? Second – are these people represent government of the Sultanate of Sulu? Third – are they really “have de facto control over a territory, a population, a government, a capacity to enter into relations with other states”? According to The Philippines' Department of Foreign Affairs intruders are unarmed Filipinos who had been promised land. So, the Sultanat of Sulu don’t meet criteria for inclusion. Aotearoa (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I would also hesitate to include the sultanate at the present time, and I'm reverting to the previous version while we discuss whether it would appropriate to do so (consistent with previous discussions as to potential new entries). There is really no one set of criteria used to determine whether a new entry should be added to the list. Sulu doesn't appear to meet any of those that are listed—a week-long occupation of a small town doesn't really satisfy "a defined territory" or a "permanent population", or even "de facto complete or partial control over their claimed territory", and nothing like a government exists. I would particularly note the fifth dot-point in the "excluded entries" section, which eliminates situations "where the conflict is still in its active phase, the situation is too rapidly changing and no relatively stable rump states have emerged yet." IgnorantArmies 11:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
    • The inclusion criteria are very clear, the fifth dot point is for different governments claiming to be the same state. The Sultanate declared independence in the 1400's and lost its territiory in the early 1900's. Now that it has occupied a permanantly inhabited place, it belongs on the list. The individuals occupying were sent by the Sultan as part of the Army of the Sultanate of Sulu.XavierGreen (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
      • It may have declared independence in the 1400s, but do we know if this present group has declared independence? It's a bit hard to draw a straight line over six centuries. --Golbez (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Its not hard at all if you know the background on whats going on. The Sultanate is not acting on behalf of the Philippines, it is acting on its own accord. See here[[6]]. The treaty it signed with the Philippines in the 1960's allows it to pursue its claim to Sabah independent of the philippines under conditions that the sultan claims currently exist.XavierGreen (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
        • But have the people there specifically said they want independence from Malaysia, rather than autonomy within? --Golbez (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
          • The Sultanate has existed continuously in one manner or another since the 1400's. Originally the Sultanates claims in Sabah were leased to a british company, which transferred its rights to the British government. The British government paid the Sultanate rent for the use of the land. When Malaya gained independence and was expanded to include Sabah, the British government informed Malaysia that their actions were illegal as the lease of Sabah could not be transferred to another state per treaty, and that if the British left the land was to revert back to the Sultanate. The Malaysians acknowledge the existance of the Sultante by paying them the same rent the British did, but they simply ignore the other provisions of the treaty that stipulate that the area should return to the Sultanate. The Sultan is acting on his reversionary rights by repossesing the land he has a soveriegn claim to. Since the Sultanate controls a permanantly inhabited place, it meets the criteria.XavierGreen (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Exclusion criteria are very clear: “Those areas undergoing current civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession, regardless of temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria (by having control over permanently populated territory or 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 rump states have emerged yet.” Part of town (not all) is occupied by some Filipinos. Malaysian police cordoned area. Malaysian government wish solve the problem without fighting. So conflict is still in its active phase. Moreover, there no reliable sources confirmed that Filipinos are “army” of Sultanate of Sulu government. Aotearoa (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. That clause makes it quite clear that it does not belong here - at least until the situation stabilises.

I note that this discussion has been cited at List of sovereign states in an edit summary - in the point is similar: on that article the Sultanate would need to "have declared independence and [be] often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory". This certainly at least implies that potentially transient or active conflicts do not count until a stable situation takes place (because this would generally prevent the state from being "often regarded" as anything much - and certainly the claim itself would need sourcing). I note that we did not include on either article the two separate governments of Libya during the Libyan civil war - a situation that lasted far longer and where there was a far clearer split between the two sides. Kahastok talk 18:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I echo all the concerns stated above. Until a source is provided that these people consider themselves to be a sovereign state, they don't belong. Everything I have read suggests this isn't the case. See: "The Sultanate of Sulu wants Malaysia to return Sabah to the control of the Philippines, the spokesman for Sultan of Sulu Jamalul Kiram III said yesterday." TDL (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The fourth bullet point which refers to civil wars only pertains to issues where there is a dispute in the thoery of succession of states, specifically where two governments are each defacto independent of one another but specifically claim to be dejure the same state, such as the two China's, the two governments of Syria, and the Libyan situation mentioned above. It was never meant to be expansive on all situations involving unrecognized states. The Sultanate of Sulu does not claim to be <alayia, the rule does not apply here. There are people of filipino descent living in the area who have aligned themselves with the sultan.[[7]]. It should be noted that the Sultanate no longer claims soveriegnty over the areas it formally ruled in the Philipines, only the areas it controls in Sabah. As part of the agreement where the Sultanate surrendered its claims in the philippines, the phillipines is required to advocate for the Sultanates claims in Sabah.XavierGreen (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

While the ultimate aim of the Sultan is indeed to have Sabah merged into the Philippines, he is attempting to do so by asserting his independent sovereignty in the areas he claims as the philippines has not made any attempt to assert the claim itself. This has been a common tactic for expansionist intrests within nations, I.E. create a defacto independent state in an area the expansionists wish to incorporated into their home country and then once title is cleared or the other claiments have been defeated, move to cede their new state into that of their original mother country. This has been done in, the Republic of West Florida, the Republic of California, Republic of Central Lithuania, ect. The motives for creating a state (or in this case reactivating a state) do not matter in considering whether or not it actually is a state.XavierGreen (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with the analysis that it would be a state if that is the case. But what we have now is some really new newsreports; the knowledge that we don't know who is holder of the Sultanate (see the sultanate article, where this is sourced); and we don't know the facts on the ground apart from this article... I think this is premature.... L.tak (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Its well sourced that the events i have described have happened and are happening. One of the article i posted also stated that the various other claimants to the throne are all united and backing the venture. Regardless, the people in control regard themselves to be subjects of Sultan Jamalul Kiram III, so he is the soveriegn in regards to the areas in Sabah currently under the control of the Sultanate.XavierGreen (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

In regarding to being premature, the length of time a state has existed is not a determining factor of whether or not a polity is a state or not and is not a factor regarding a polity's inclusion in this page.XavierGreen (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's so well sourced, then it should be easy for you to show me a source which says that these people consider themselves to be independent of BOTH Malaysia and the Philippines. Since you've yet to be able to do that, they don't belong. TDL (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I already did, one of the sources i listed above stated that the Sultanate was exercising his soveriegn rights independently because the government of the phillipines did not do so. The Independence of the Sultanate stems from antiquity, asking for a declaration of independence is like asking for one of Thailand or China. There are various treaty documents from the 1800's where the independence of the Sultanate was recognized.XavierGreen (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've read both sources you posted multiple times, and I don't see anything in either which supports your claim. Perhaps you can post a specific quote which you believe backs it up? TDL (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You're pointing people from List of sovereign states here, I'll ask a question specific to that.

Please provide a source, as least as good as that relied upon for another state in that list, demonstrating:

1. That this group has declared independence.
2. That this group is often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory.

Note in particular the present tense "is" and that they must "often" be regarded as having such control. There, as here, documents demonstrating a different status from the nineteenth century do not plausibly count when discussing a situation that arose within the past few days.

In the case of Somaliland (the only other entry on that list that absolutely relies on this criterion), we have [8][9][10], which demonstrate both points clearly. Kahastok talk 10:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The links above clearly show that the Sultanate under Kiram III is in control of a permanantly populated place. As for independence, the Independence of the Sultanate stems from antiquity a well established fact. Treaties and other diplomatic documents from the 1800's do count in international relations, for example the United States and Canada are still bound by the Jay treaty which was signed in the late 1790's. The entire legallity of the current sitution in Sabah is based entirely off of the Sutlan's reversionary rights according to a 1878 agreement with a british commercial syndicate.XavierGreen (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sultanate of Sulu is not independent state. As other sultanates, kingdoms and principalities in South-East Asia (with exception of Brunei). However, royal families still exist and some of them have possessions. In this case royal family of Sulu want restore its possessions on Borneo Island. But having property is not same as having independence. In Europe many royal/princely families have lands, but these lands are parts of particular countries. In this case we haven’t got information that Sultan of Sulu wish to reestablish independent sultanate on “its” lands in Borneo. We only know, that he want these lands back (as his property). Aotearoa (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The whole basis of its claim relies on the fact that it is an independent sovereign state! The issue at hand is sovereign rights, not fee simple property rights as you describe. The sovereignty of the area was leased to the British in 1878, and the Sultan wants his reversionary enforced so as to return sovereignty rights to himself. The situation is akin to that of the Panama Canal Zone, where Panama leased the sovereignty of the zone to the United States in perpetuity with reversionary rights retained if the United States were ever to leave.XavierGreen (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this issues has spilled over to Sultanate of Sulu where XavierGreen is attempting to mark the Sultanate as "extant". Surely we should follow the consensus here on that article as well. TDL (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The Sultanate controls a piece of territory in Sabah, it is therefore extant. I don't really see how it could be argued any other way. If something exists it is extant.XavierGreen (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

And if you could provide a single source to support your claim that the Sultanate of Sulu "exists" this would be a reasonable argument. (No, a bunch of guys squatting in a village doesn't prove that a state "exists".) As you haven't, this doesn't address the issue. There's a clear consensus above. Please respect it. Continuing to edit war your unsourced opinions into the project, either here or on Sultanate of Sulu, will lead to your blocking. TDL (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

My statements are not unsourced! I provided multiple links above, if you would care to read them. All you need to establish a state is a handful of gunmen occupying a permanently inhabited place and claiming sovereignty over it. There were literally dozens upon dozens of states in Europe during the middle ages and renascence that were little more than just that. I provided multiple sources above stating that the force that took the village did so to exercise the sovereignty of the Sultan of Sulu. Here's another, [[11]].XavierGreen (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

And if you would care to read my comments above, you would realize that I have read your sources: "I've read both sources you posted multiple times, and I don't see anything in either which supports your claim. Perhaps you can post a specific quote which you believe backs it up?"

Also, the most recent article you posted says: "the Sultanate of Sulu ceded to the Philippine government its title and sovereignty to then-President Diosdado Macapagal in 1962." Another says: "They had also purportedly raised the Philippine flag in the area." Everything suggests that they are claiming to the territory for the Philippines, not as an independent state.

"All you need to establish a state is a handful of gunmen" - I don't dispute that, but we don't even have that in this case. The protesters are "unarmed". Can they really "control" territory if they're unarmed and surrounded by the Malaysian military? TDL (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"He [i.e. Abraham Idjirani, secretary general to the Sultanate of Sulu under Sultan Jamalul Kiram III] added that they also informed President Aquino of the sultanate’s support to the Philippines’ Sabah claim." ([12]) – so, Sultanate's action is for incorporate Sabah to the Philippines, not to establish independent state. Aotearoa (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The case of Somaliland

Each entry in the current List of states with limited recognition meets the criteria for inclusion with one exception. Limited recognition to varying degrees applies to all cases except the self-proclaimed Republic of Somaliland. Although Somaliland declared independence and currently has effective control over its territory, it has received NO recognition (limited or otherwise) by any other geopolitical entity (UN member or UN non-member). Therefore Somaliland cannot be included in the List of states with limited recognition. Somaliland's case is more similar to that of the self-proclaimed Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and the self-proclaimed State/Republic of Azawad. In all those cases, independence was declared and effective control of the claimed territory was gained. The difference is that the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and Azawad lost that control over the Russian and the Malian forces respectively, whereas Somaliland still controls its territory. I suggest a new article with a separate list for those cases. CostaDax (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The requirements for inclusion of a polity are well defined. Somaliland clearly fits the inclusion criteria for the page. While there are one or two entities which may or not be murky in regards to whether they fit the criteria or not (Azad Kashmir comes to mind), Somaliland clearly fits the criteria, having declared independence, being administered as a state, and maintaining control over permanently inhabited territory.XavierGreen (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"None" is within the subset of "limited". --Golbez (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Republic of West Papua

Does anyone know if the Free Papua Movement controls any territory? I cant find any sources stating it does, but if it controls even one village it would technically meet the criteria for the page since they declared independence in 1971. I would think it extremely likely that they have some measure of control in the highlands. Something to keep an eye on perhaps.XavierGreen (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Why would it meet those criteria if it controls territory? How do you interpret "capacity to enter into relationships" and the other criteria to be met? L.tak (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It already has proved that it has a capacity to enter relationships, through waging war against Indonesia.XavierGreen (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Insufficient. If I declare my home to be independent, and the police haven't invaded my home yet, or if I've killed the ones that tried, that does not mean I qualify for this list. Perhaps I should propose a new criteria: If you are unrecognized, you must have have claimed defined borders, and at some point in their history must have controlled the majority of that area. So, merely claiming to own a region doesn't count, you have to show some capacity to own it. I believe all of our existing entries qualify under this new criteria, but it would rule out 'rogue villages' like this and Sulu. --Golbez (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(Though I realize that wouldn't actually rule out my home, that was just an example. My home doesn't qualify because it cannot act as a state, while a village kind of can. But Sulu and West Papua presumably claim more than a single village.) --Golbez (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

West Papua claims the entire western half of the island of new guinea. Under your theory, if it could be proven that Sulu considers itself independent it would meet the criteria, since it did control the entirety of the territory it claimed at one point in its existance. But regardless, any such modification of the criteria would be invalid since the declarative theory of statehood set out in the Montevideo Convention does not make any requirement for size of a state or a demand for effective jurisdiction of a majority of its claimed territory.

Regarding the Republic of West Papua's ability to conduct relations with other states, it has conducted negotiations with the Indonesian government prior to 2001.[[13]]. A minor note, the requirement is not that a state actually conduct relations with other states, merely that they have the capability of doing so. Anyone who has the ability to communicate can conduct diplomatic negotiations regardless of how effective those negotiations might be.XavierGreen (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Quite true about Sulu, so I add another subcriterion: "They must have maintained independent control of at least some portion of their land since that time they had majority control." That is to say, if I declare independence, control my territory, then lose it all for 40 years, living under the yoke of someone else, then capture a village, that doesn't then mean I'm an independent power again. And, "conducting negotiations" with the country you're in a civil war with doesn't exactly mean you're independent. If I declare my house independent, and the police send in a hostage negotiator, do I get on the list because I'm "conducting negotiations" with a foreign power? And finally, if you're saying all that is needed is the ability to communicate, e.g. have a satellite phone, then that criteria is useless and should be expunged. Except maybe that's not what is intended by the criterion. --Golbez (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The West Paupans have made attempts to gain political recognition, [[14]]. Most notably there is a rather strong movement in Vanuatu to recognize West Papua, and various delegations representing West Papua have met with Vanuatuan government officials there. [[15]]. Regardless of that i agree that the critera for the capability of conducting diplomatic relations is ambiguous, but again the source used for the criteria is the Montevideo Convention which does not explain what is meant by the "capability to conduct diplomatic relations".XavierGreen (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that if we require that included states "at some point in their history must have controlled the majority of [they're claimed] area," that might rule out some mainstays of the list like Palestine and Western Sahara. And as far as I can tell West Papua doesn't have obvious control of any defined territory. As a comparison, try figuring out which areas of Colombia are "controlled" by the FARC, a much more powerful armed movement than the West Papuan rebels. GeoEvan (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Shan State

This entity may actually already meet the requirements for the list. The Shan State Restoration Council declared independence in on 13 December 1993 [[16]] and it still holds territory [[17]].XavierGreen (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your source specifies Khun Sa declared an independent state, that may or may not have been the same state the rebels fight for. Unless the current people there consider themselves the same state that Khun Sa declared, this doesn't qualify. So, further sourcing is necessary, as your second source does not specify that this is a descendent of the group that declared independence. Just because one person proclaimed Shan independent, doesn't mean that applies to all groups in Shan, especially if the original group no longer exists. --Golbez (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There was also another Shan group that declared independence in 2005, not entirely sure what faction they are related to.XavierGreen (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the Shan state rebels renounced their claims of independence, or at least agreed to join the government, in a ceasefire deal with the government a couple years ago, but feel free to check that. The Kachin Independence Organization still controls some territory in opposition to the government, but I think they don't officially claim to be fighting for independence anymore, and may not have ever actually declared an independent state. GeoEvan (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Pakistani view of what Armenia is

How does Pakistan view the area of Armenia? (Part of Russia, the remnants of the USSR, part of Azerbaijan, or others?)–Spesh531, My talk, and External links 23:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb is that areas states do not recognize as sovereign are terra nullis. I would imagine Armenia is treated as de-jure terra nullis under Pakistani law.XavierGreen (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

So basically it's seen like Bir Tawil, but with 3.2 million people?–Spesh531, My talk, and External links 19:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In essence, the United States has a similar position on the status of the Western Sahara.XavierGreen (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sao Tome and Principe does not recognize Georgia

Something that has been overlooked is that Sao Tome and Principe does not recognize Georgia, in the same law that recognition of Kosovo was revoked, so was recognition of Georgia.[[18]] XavierGreen (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there another source (not required to be English-language but preferable) that substantiates this? I'd love a primary source, that is, the text of the law, but I'll take corroboration too. Reasoning would be nice as well. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

From what i can gather, the President of Sao Tome was ticked off at them for making what he saw as illegal deals with his predecessor, which is the same reason he withdrew recognition from Kosovo. [[19]]. Heres another source [[20]].XavierGreen (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If no one opposes I'll be bold and add it to the list, the map should be updated as well.XavierGreen (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

If I use google translate on the second source I get this: "Da Costa has decided to veto the resolution which recognizes Kosovo and Georgia." In other words

1. First: there was no formal deed of recognition of either state (as with very many states is the case)
2. Second: a law is passed formally recognizing both
3. Third: that law is vetoed...

The effect of this would not be "retraction of recognition" but, a state which has never explicitly recognized, which is "nothing specia" in the diplomatic world. However, this is all based on dubious google translate, so I am open to other interpretations and sources... L.tak (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with L.tak. There is a long-time consensus on this page that we only list states who's existence is disputed by another state, not merely states which have yet to be formally recognized by another state. Otherwise, virtually every state in the world would have to be included. TDL (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

An explicit withdrawal of recognition seems similar to a dispute of existence, and is definitely different from countries which simply lack formal recognition. A withdrawal would place it on the same level as neighbouring Armenia, in my opinion. Of course, I'd prefer another source to corroborate. CMD (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly akin to the Armenian situation, the consensus which TDL speaks of only refers to situations where the non-recognizing country has issued no statement at all regarding recognition. Here we have a situation where Sao Tome and Principe states that it does not recognize Georgia. It seems to me like it fits the critera. I've listed two different sources and a third explaining the reasoning behind the situation.XavierGreen (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, but you're misunderstanding the situation because recognition hasn't been "withdrawn". What happened is that the President of STP claims that the process taken by the government of STP to formalize recognition the two states wasn't legal under the STP constitution and hence the recognition never legally occurred. Thus, it is his view that STP "has issued no statement at all regarding recognition" because the original decision wasn't legal and thus this case is precisely the same as the case of Montenegro and others for which we have a past consensus. TDL (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Tricky. Has the government issued any statements on Georgia since? CMD (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but the past government which recognized (which has since been replaced) has reiterated that they believe they followed the proper processes and that the recognitions are valid. They claim that the President's annulment of the recognitions is invalid. So there isn't even a consensus among STP politicians on the status of recognition. I read this all a while back, but I'll try to dig up some sources. TDL (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a good quote by the Democratic Convergence Party – Reflection Group which supports the president: "the problem lies not in recognition itself, which has been done by many countries, but in the way tendentious and unilateral how the previous government proceeded​​," says the party that supports the current government of Gabriel Costa." Other sources: [21] [22]. TDL (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sealand

Shouldn't the Principality of Sealand be on here, as it seems to fit the same category as Somaliland (despite being much smaller)? No formal recognition by anyone, but a British court has said it's outside UK jurisdiction (I assume in connection with the Cod War which broke out over the same principle), and German diplomats have negotiated with the de facto authorities. Although I'm not sure if the place actually has a permanent population. It's definitely inhabited, but I rather doubt it is anyone's primary residence. 78.105.228.3 (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Sealand is pretty much the archetypal example of a micronation, and thus explicitly excluded. Kahastok talk 17:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this. One one hand, Sealand meets this criterion for inclusion "have de facto control over a territory, a population, a government, a capacity to enter into relations with other states" and has a legal basis for their claim to their territory. On the other hand, Sealand is much smaller than any other state on the list, and if Sealand was included it might make more micronations try to get onto the list. I think the criteria for getting onto the list should be more well-defined (and possibly stricter). 109.144.198.110 (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. Firstly, it's disputed whether Sealand is in fact a micronation. The article on Sealand calls it an "unrecognised entity" rather than a micronation, and many sources refer to it as a "country" or "state" rather than a "micronation". Plus these factors make it more like an unrecognised state than a micronation:

• Sealand's claiming of Roughs Tower was legal under international law.
• The UK are aware of Sealand and have tried to reclaim it before, but have been unable to under their law.
• The UK had acknowledged that they had no control over Sealand.
• Germany has sent a diplomat to Sealand before.
• Sealand have asserted their control over their territory: when a group of Germans arrived and attempted to take over Sealand, Sealand managed to resume control of their territory.
• Sealand has an economy. (HavenCo)

Plus, of course, the current criteria for inclusion on this list seem to indicate that Sealand should be included (though it depends whether Sealand is considered to be a micronation).

Therefore, I think it should be included. 109.144.198.110 (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not accept that it is significantly disputed that Sealand is a micronation, beyond the level normal for micronations.

I also do not accept that any of the "factors" you name make Sealand "more like an unrecognised state than a micronation". Your references to the UK and Germany fall far below our standard of diplomatic recognition (but are precisely the sorts of points that micronations tend to exaggerate in attempt to imply recognition where none exists). Your claim that "Sealand's claiming of Roughs Tower was legal under international law" is at best an opinion mistaken for a fact. Your claim that "Sealand has an economy" does not form part of our criteria and could be applied to any number of non-states, including micronations.

I do not accept that "the current criteria for inclusion on this list seem to indicate that Sealand should be included": the conditions are clear that micronations are not included and even if they weren't, I cannot see a reading of the criteria that would lead us to include Sealand and not any other micronation you choose to name.

If you want to see what an unrecognised state looks like, see Somaliland. Because frankly, this is not a close call. Kahastok talk 19:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If you look at any wikipedia article on any micronation other than Sealand, it will state that it is definitely a micronation (e.g. Principality of Hutt River, Talossa) and that the micronation only claims to be a sovereign state. However, on the wikipedia page for Principality of Sealand, it is called an "unrecognised entity", and further on "While it has been described as the world's smallest nation,[11] or a micronation,[12] Sealand is not currently officially recognised by any established sovereign state." Either the wikipedia article should be changed or there is more dispute than usual over whether it is a micronation.

Are there any other micronations that have had a diplomat from another country sent to them?

Sealand's claim to Roughs Tower does have a legal basis. I'll admit that this is disputable however.

I don't think any other micronation has a business running from it under the laws of that micronation, and especially not such a business that has had such customers as the government-in-exile of Tibet.

The criteria state that: "The criteria for inclusion means a polity must claim statehood, lack recognition from at least one state, and either:

have de facto control over a territory, a population, a government, a capacity to enter into relations with other states, or

be recognised as a state by at least one other state."

Sealand fits these criteria for inclusion. The only reason Sealand shouldn't be included is from the separate criterion further down that "Entities considered to be micronations are not included.[Note 2] Even though micronations generally claim to be sovereign and independent, it is often up to debate whether a micronation truly controls its claimed territory.[Note 3] Micronations are usually not considered of geopolitical relevance. For a complete list, see list of micronations." (incidentally, I don't think the criteria should be spread out like this, they should all be in one place.)

Note 3 states that " It is debatable whether micronations have sovereign control over their claimed territories, that are of minuscule size, or the state from which the micronation claims to have seceded simply doesn't deem such declaration (and other acts of the micronation) important enough to react in any way and considers the micronation to be a combination of unofficial private announcements of individuals and a private property, where the individuals remain its (of the state that the micronation claims to have seceded from) citizens and the property remains part of its territory and both remain subject to its laws."

In the case of Sealand this is not debatable at all since the UK have tried to take over Sealand before but have been unable to under their law.

Thus whether Sealand should be included rests on whether it is considered a micronation or not, which, as I have already stated, is disputable.

I'll admit that Somaliland is more well-recognized than Sealand and I'm okay with Sealand not being included, if the criteria for inclusion make it clear why it is not included.

109.144.204.187 (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• According to the Law of the Sea artificial installations aren’t islands, and they have no territory. Principality of Sealand has Roughs Tower only, which is unterritorial installation according to the international low. Country without territory misses inclusion criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.48.90 (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

How do you define "international law"? In the case of the Law of the Sea convention, many sovereign states, most notably the USA, haven't signed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.174.1 (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't dispute that Sealand is considered a micronation, but I do actually think it's a relatively close call given the inclusion criteria for this page and other related ones. It sort of has each of the things required for meeting the first criterion:

a territory The platform is certainly administered by the entity claiming to be Sealand, and unlike other micronations it is neither considered part of the sovereign territory of a recognized state nor spacially separated from the people claiming to administer it. One possible problem though is that a platform doesn't usually qualify as "territory" under international law in the way that actual land does.

a population There is certainly someone living there, though it might be argued under WP:COMMONSENSE that one or two people do not constitute "a population" as the concept is usually understood.

a government As mentioned above, it does seem to be genuinely administered by the people claiming it.

a capacity to enter into relations with other states This has always been a vaguely defined concept, and Sealand's contact with the German diplomat does seem to give it a much better claim here than almost all other micronations have.

GeoEvan (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We do explicitly exclude micronations because of arguments such as the above. The whole point of a micronation is that it looks superficially like a normal state, and they frequently make precisely the sort of argument you make above to justify their state-ness. We exclude them because there's a difference, and that difference is overwhelmingly accepted both in the international community and in the academic community. We have a list of micronations. We don't need to turn this into another one.

I see nothing in your points that gives me reason to distinguish Sealand from any other micronation. In particular, contact with a German diplomat does not constitute capacity to enter into relations. I'm sure many micronations can claim official contact with formal states - such as, for example, when their "leaders" applied for their drivers' licenses. Sealand is not reaching a whole lot higher than that. If negotiating with a government (or someone whose job is to represent one, not necessarily in an official capacity) is enough to constitute capacity to enter into relations, there's a whole load of government contractors or franchise-holders around the world that need to go on lists like this one. Kahastok talk 17:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't actually arguing that Sealand should be on this list. I understand that we explicitly exclude micronations here, I agree that Sealand is a micronation (as I already said), and I understand the conventional distinction between micronations and sovereign states. I just object to the way you brushed aside Sealand as "not even close" when it actually does stand out as the most of credible of the micronations. "Capacity to enter relations" or not (I've never heard this concept defined, by the way), it's the only micronation I know of which is both administered on-site and not claimed as territory by any sovereign state. I think it's unproductive and academically dishonest to suppress discussion of our criteria in the context of cases which other users reasonably believe to be gray areas. I know we get a lot of cranks in here who don't read or make a real attempt to understand the criteria, but this isn't one of those cases. GeoEvan (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, we do have a question of Vatican, larger, but still very small territory, if we speak about territory. I also agree that Sealand should be here, as per fact that all other micronations actually do not have control over its territory, while Sealand does in a way. With its own documents, stamps, money, ID's, royal family, all other thing that most of other micronations do not have. But, i think that we should raise a far bigger question, should we include microstates here or not. Personally, i would add it here, as it is THE one example of the state, in micro "packaging". :) --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot of micronations have their own "documents, stamps, money, ID's, royal family". That's part of the point - to give themselves the trappings of states.

Microstates - that is to say, genuine states that are recognised and accepted internationally but happen to be very small, like San Marino, Monaco, Liechtenstein or the Vatican - should not be included unless they have limited recognition. As they all seem to have universal acceptance, this would not seem to be an issue: they are not included because they are universally accepted. Micronations - "states" that people have dreamed up, like Sealand, the Kingdom of Lovely, and whatever else - should never be included because they are not states in any conventional sense.

While Sealand may be the most state-like of the micronations, that's like saying that a potato is the most meat-like of the vegetables. It doesn't matter how you cut it, it isn't meat. That there is a difference between micronations and genuine states is widely accepted and recognised, both internationally and academically. The notion that I can declare my house to be its own state and that it would therefore have to be included on an article such as this - as you argue - gives those "states'" pretensions to legitimacy a ridiculous degree of undue weight.

In response to GeoEvan, I would not be averse to this article keeping step with the List of sovereign states in terms of its inclusion criteria. Instead of trying to judge capacity to enter into relations on our own, we would say that entirely unrecognised states have to:

"have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory".

Somaliland passes this. Every micronation fails. Easily. Including Sealand. The explicit prohibition of micronations is useful but not essential. Kahastok talk 21:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: While I agree that the new criteria is better, the problem of what "often regarded" means may still arise. For example, this refers to Sealand as a country: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/on-the-heap/story-e6frg6n6-1111114833455, while many other sources refer to it as a micronation, or don't bother referring to it at all. Similarly, someone who supports Sealand's inclusion can point to its contact with German diplomats as a sign that they are "often regarded" as having sovereignty (once again though, Germany never recognized Sealand de jure). Nonetheless, the new criteria is much more specific than the old one, and the scarcity of sources that bother to mention sealand means that Sealand probably fails to meet it. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason for that wording is I believe to push to onus from our own original interpretation on to reliable sources. But while I wouldn't accept Sealand coming anywhere near meeting the rule, the existing prohibition on micronations helps forestall the case and as such I would certainly retain it. It is not necessary, but it is useful. Kahastok talk 21:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Murrawarri Republic

Better keep an eye out for this one, the Murrawarri people have gone to the UN to formally recognise their republic. Reference: [23] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless they actually get such recognition (highly unlikely), or else can be demonstrated to meet the other condition, it's not really relevant to the article. Kahastok talk 17:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this makes no sense. The UN does not recognize independent nations, it simply grants membership or observer status. So, there's really nothing to keep an eye on - this is a non-story. --Golbez (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody said the UN recognises states... and btw Fiji and several other countries are in talks with the Murrawarri Republic. Hardly a non-story...--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Fiji and several other countries are in talks with the Murrawarri Republic – any sources? Aotearoa (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I had a brief look and didn't find any. Probably depends how we're defining "talks" - micronations in general often use important-sounding words like "talks" and "de facto recognition" for things that turn out to be relatively mundane and insignificant. In any case, even formal talks wouldn't cut it without explicit diplomatic recognition, and we have no reasonable expectation that that will be forthcoming.

Right now they're a close parallel to the Republic of Lakota and thus a non-story from this article's perspective. In the unlikely event that they meet the criteria in the future, we can reconsider. Kahastok talk 16:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Republic of Lakota never had true sovereignty as there were treaties involved with them, the Murrawarri Republic has a firm right to independence thanks to the Mabo Case. Also Time Magazine has reported on the independence movement. http://world.time.com/2013/05/30/australias-aborigines-launch-a-bold-legal-push-for-independence/?iid=gs-main-lead --Collingwood26 (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Still doesn't qualify for this page. CMD (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The key factor here is that evidence needs to be presented that they actually have defacto control over at least populated place and a state structure. From what i have read, i dont dispute the declaration of independence but what is also need for inclusion of the list is either proof of recognition by a state that is already on the list or defacto control of a populated place. There are many "states" which are not listed on this list because they are in a similar nature to the Murrawarri Republic, for example the Republic of West Papua. If the Murrawarri Republic was to create an armed force and seize control of a town, city, ect they would meet the criteria for the page.XavierGreen (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Cyprus

Is Turkey really unrecognise the Republic of Cyprus as an independent state? According to “Treaty of Guarantee between the Republic of Cyprus and Greece, the United Kingdom and Turkey” the Republic of Cyprus is independent state. This treaty was signed by Turkey, which means Turkey recognized Cyprus as independent state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.48.90 (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That treaty was signed before there was a coup in Cyprus aimed at union with Greece and a subsequent Turkish invasion setting up an autonomous Northern Cyprus that eventually declared independence, which Turkey supports. CMD (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Are any information about withdrawn recognition (+date)? In the article International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is note: “Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable”. How is it, then? Which article gives an untruth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.48.90 (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it's different political theories, and thus there is no truth, per se. That said, governments can, and do, say they are revoking recognition. For example, Vanuatu recently revoked recognition of Abkhazia (for the second time, sort of). CMD (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

"Un-recognition" is possible. After all, no countries recognize the Soviet Union anymore... Jackstormson (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That is because it ceased to be a functioning country/government, I am not even sure there is a government-in-exile of it.—SPESH531Other 00:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Many countries have un-recognized the PRC or the ROC. --Golbez (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Bangsamoro

I think Xavier might be right on this one. They have a declaration of independence, this is not in dispute. And now the organization that declared independence claims to control substantual territory ("Asked if what he meant by “fallen” was that Philippine authorities no longer had control over the areas, Fontanilla answered yes."), though so far as I can tell this has not been corroborated by Filipino authorities. And while it doesn't say specifically Bangsamoro controls that territory, it's the group that declared independence as Bangsamoro, so ... And if it's seven villages, that's more substantial than some crackpot separationists in a compound who wouldn't warrant inclusion.

I dunno, there could be gaps (lack of corroboration from Filipino authorities, the size of the occupied area) so let's discuss. But to me it seems like at present it could be a valid inclusion. --Golbez (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There does seem to be a good case for their inclusion, though I agree that we really need neutral WP:SECONDARY sources that confirm their control of territory. Anyone can claim to control territory. TDL (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of news reports out that they took control of 7 villages. One of them was retaken by the Philippine government this morning, but the rest are still in their hands. They may control other populated places on mindano but i cant find any source that says they control anything besides the 6 they currently have near Zamborga. Ill post some other sources shortly.XavierGreen (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Heres reuters, in the first paragraph it says the MNLF controls several villages. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/09/us-philippines-rebels-idUSBRE9880EM20130909 XavierGreen (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:List of sovereign states#Bangsamoro Republik for a discussion of Bangsamoro's status. It's my claim that to hold territory during a conflict is not equivalent to having sovereign control. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Per the previous precedent of adding Azawad to this list even though it was at war and had unclear borders for all of its existence, I support adding this movement, if it still controls territory. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Per the Battle of Zamboanga City page, the Phillipino government has regained "80 percent of the areas that had been occupied by the rebels". While this means that the rebels still control territory, it means that this movement is likely to be short lived. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 06:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ye..., MNLF control one village, after two hours they move to another one, and so on. Formally they control, but not particular area, and different areas for short period. Lake partisans – today they are in one place (and of course control this place), tomorrow in the second one... 89.68.64.18 (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed and even if they has control of a village or two nobody recognizes them and they have zero diplomatic relations with anyone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

On the Criteria

User:Danlaycock recently attempted to sync the criteria for this page with List of sovereign states. Is there a need/desire to make this the case - I think it needs running by here first. I'd happily agree with the first change ("satisfy the declarative theory of statehood"), but I'd like to check whether we need the second point to be recognition by a UN state or just by another sovereign state? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally this list follows the lead of List of sovereign states, as I don't think it makes much sense to have different criteria for the two, but I don't mind discussing it here. (I restored the sources because I presume there is no opposition to this.)

The rational for specifying "UN state" rather than just "sovereign state" is that the current wording could lead to an undesirable outcome. Keep in mind that this clause is only applicable to states which don't meet the DTS (and hence qualify under part 1 of the criteria). Do we really want to include states which don't meet the DTS and are only recognized by unrecognized states?

If we define "sovereign state" to be any state that is recognized, then if say Somaliland recognizes Bangsamoro, and Bangsamoro recognizes the Republic of Lakotah, and Lakotah recognizes the Principality of Sealand, and Sealand recognizes the Conch Republic, under the current wording we'd need to include all of these states. I'm not sure that's really what we want. Being recognized by a fringe state doesn't really add much to the legitimacy of a state. TDL (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough; sorry if I over-reacted but I just wanted to flag it up before making the change, and your argument is persuasive --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being cautious. I'll leave the discussion open for a few more days, and if no one objects restore the changes. TDL (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The dissintegration of Lybia

Since the 2011 war, in Lybia there is a de facto independence of Cyrenaica (with capital in Benghazi). It is called "semi-autonomous region", and however, it is completely independent, as Tripoli has not any influence in the politics of Benghazi. Lybia is right now a failed state, similar to Somalia. Its people is living in a chaotic state.

Last 27th of september, the region of Fezzan declared its autonomy from Tripoli [24]. Misrata is a kind of city-state. Nafusa mountains(Berber people) is another de facto autonomous area. And many militias control other territories without the interference of any kind of central government.

Archinovista (15-oct-2013) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archinovista (talk • contribs) 13:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

ISIL

I think the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant should be added. The article even has an "Unrecognized state" infobox. [Soffredo] 15:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Have any sources been found since our last discussion that claim that it either "satisfy the declarative theory of statehood, or be recognised as a state by at least one UN member state"? TDL (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The opening sentence of the article is:

"The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Arabic: الدولة الاسلامية في العراق والشام ad-Dawla al-Islāmiyya fi al-'Irāq wa-sh-Shām), abbreviated as ISIS, is an unrecognized self-proclaimed sovereign state. Before declaring its independence on April 8, 2013, the state acted as an armed resistance group active in Iraq and Syria."

[Soffredo] 20:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because you just added that AFTER starting this thread. None of those sources mention anything about either recognition or the declarative theory of statehood. Things like "its belief that it is a sovereign state", "political designs as the reborn Islamic state", and "ISIS’s unique claim to statehood" don't justify inclusion based on the criteria. TDL (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. In terms of sourcing, nothing has changed since last time. Kahastok talk 12:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Soffredo is changing Gallery of sovereign state flags, which states in its first sentence it is based on the sovereign states article, with the rationale that the ISIS page says so. CMD (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually Soffredo went and changed the Sovereign states article too. My implication that the bypassing of the talkpage was selective was mistaken. CMD (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The National Post of Canada recently had an article in which it stated that ISIS controls territory 'a statelet' and considers itself to be soveriegn. [[25]]XavierGreen (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

As for the language in the ISIS article itself, that was a result of the merger between the ISIL splinter page. The AFD result speficically stated that any information regarding ISIL as a state was to be merged / added onto the ISIS page since they were in fact the same entity.XavierGreen (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Improving map captions

For clarity and consistency the four map captions: Not recognised by any state; Recognised by UN non-members only; UN non-members recognised by at least one member; UN member states, not recognised by at least one other member

should, I think, be made identical to the subheadings (shown below) under the main heading "Present geopolitical entities by level of recognition" discussing these entities. This is especially true for the last of the four, which uses a negative phrase that is ambiguous, inasmuch as it can be read as meaning "UN member state recognized by no other state," which really isn't possible, but, nevertheless, might be so interpreted by some readers, at least momentarily.

Non-UN member states not recognised by any state; Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members; Non-UN member states recognised by at least one UN member; Partially unrecognised UN member states.

If, after a suitable time interval, no objection to my recommendation is made, I will make these changes, and also, for improved clarity, remove the hyphens between "non" and "UN." Wikifan2744 (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Venice?

Venice is currently having a referendum on independence, which will end on Friday, and they will declare independence if the majority votes YES. If Venice declares independence, then shouldn't it be included on this page? DaneOfScandinavy (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If Venice declares independence, and sources corroborate this, while at the same time having its independence denied by Italy, then most likely it will meet requirements for this page. That said, while coverage of this has been quite minimal, I've seen no indication that a positive result for the referendum will result in Venetian authorities immediately declaring independence or anything like that. CMD (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Puntland

why Puntland is not included in this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.52.78 (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Puntland has never declared independence, only asking for autonomy. CMD (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Puntland actually did declare independence briefly in the 1990's but recinded the declaration and rejoined somalia as an autonomous federal subject. While it is defacto independent of the government, it does not actually consider itself to be independent of the government and therefor is not dejure independent even in its own eyes.208.67.210.21 (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea

I removed this last week when it was added in a commented form; it seems to be a kosher addition now. The news of the declaration, assuming things are being translated properly, seems accurate. --Golbez (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

They haven't declared independence yet. What the declaration actually says: "If Crimean residents vote for the accession of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to Russia as a constituent entity, Crimea will be declared an independent republic after the referendum" and "Based on the results of the referendum, Crimea will address Russia to accede to it as a constituent entity". You can read the full text here. Media are describing this as: "Crimea's Parliament said Tuesday that if the public votes to become part of Russia, the peninsula will declare itself independent and propose becoming a Russian state." They've said they'll declare independence if people vote in favour of joining Russia. Even if or when they declare independence, that is only part one of the criteria. This isn't a list of places that have declared independence, it is a list of sovereign states. We'd still need sources to support the claim that they "satisfy the declarative theory of statehood". TDL (talk)

But they've also said, even if Yanukovich returned to power in Ukraine, they would not be joining. They seem to be going it alone. They declared independence to give the referendum - which is apparently to join Russia, rather than for independence? - more legitimacy. Either way, they seem to be declaring that they are no longer part of Ukraine. As for the 'declarative theory of statehood', the mere fact that they can hold such a referendum without the Kyiv government interfering seems pretty strong. --Golbez (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that one would need to show "sources to support the claim that they "satisfy the declarative theory of statehood". The Crimea is already a state, even without a declaration of independence it meets the critera to be a non independent republic which is well sourced. All that is needed here is proof that they declared independence. With a declaration, the case for inclusion would be prima facia.74.105.130.90 (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Golbez: Yes, a few parliamentarians have said that, but the declaration says nothing of the sort so that's merely their personal opinion. The wording of the declaration is really quite clear: only if the people vote to join Russia will they declare independence. And yes, one could argue that them holding the election is proof of control, but we need sources to draw that conclusion, not us. One could also argue that they are being occupied by Russia and hence Crimea don't really have sovereign control.

@IP:You might think it is prima facia that they meet the declarative theory of statehood, but that is merely your opinion and hence WP:OR. Every claim made on wikipedia needs to be sourced. TDL (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

We have reliable sources confirming Crimea's declaration, you may disagree with it but it should stay on the page per the sources at hand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No we don't. Rather than relying on ad hominems, it would be more helpful if you actually read the declaration and sources. They are quite clear in what they say: Crimea resolved that they will declare independence after the referendum if the voters support joining Russia. Are you really trying to argue that when the Supreme Council of Crimea wrote in their declaration that "If Crimean residents vote for the accession of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to Russia as a constituent entity, Crimea will be declared an independent republic after the referendum" that they were mistaken? That they actually meant that they declare their independence today? That's an awfully big typo to make in such an important document.

I understand people are excited and want to be the first to update the list, but accuracy is more important than speed. This is a serious encyclopedia, not a blog. We shouldn't be trying to predict the future. Scotland has also said that they will declare independence if the public votes in favour of it later this year, shall we add them now as well because they have announced their possible future independence? TDL (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you read all of the sources listed above? CNN has even said that Crimea has declared it's independence while some sources are saying different things it is not a majority of them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

From what I've read, I think TDL is right in that the declaration does not imply an immediate seccession, but rather that the Crimean assembly has given the people of Crimea the right to choose in the future whether to remain in Ukraine, join Russia, or become independent. This seems more like a declaration of rights than an instrument for forming a separate state like those of Abkhazia, Transnistria, etc. While not identical, this may be situation like Tatarstan, which declared itself sovereign (and this is still in force) while remaining within the Russian state. Ladril (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87:: Have you read the original declaration passed by the Coiuncil? The only mention of declaring independence is: "If Crimean residents vote for the accession of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to Russia as a constituent entity, Crimea will be declared an independent republic after the referendum"? How do you interpret this statement to mean they have already declared independence?

My lord, now people are using this as evidence of recognition of Crimea by Russia? All it says is that Russia considers that the declaration is consistent with international law. That is an entirely different statement than saying Russia recognizes Crimea's independence. TDL (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think one of the sources presented on this page may have contained a misinterpretation of the content of the declaration. This is what may be causing confusion. Ladril (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You can see the full content of the original Russian language declaration here (The site is a bit flakey so here is an archived version). The relevant passage is "В случае если в результате предстоящего 16 марта 2014 года прямого волеизъявления народов Крыма будет принято решение о вхождении Крыма, включая Автономную Республику Крым и город Севастополь, в состав России, Крым после референдума будет объявлен независимым и суверенным государством с республиканской формой правления."

Also, the same controversial changers are being made to Commons:File:Limited recognition.png, List of sovereign states and numerous other places without consensus. TDL (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, please do not add the entry again until a consensus is reached on this talk page. Traditionally, all editors have been expected to adhere to this standard of conduct. Ladril (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea has been readded: [26] and an international relations page has been made International recognition of the Republic of Crimea. In addition an article titled Republic of Crimea. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In addition this source popped up an hour ago [27] saying that Crimea split before the referendum. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, but a bunch of ill informed editors adding incorrect content to the encyclopedia based on their misunderstanding of the sources doesn't change the fact that Crimea still hasn't declared independence. Did you even bother to read the source you just posted? It completely contradicts the entire premise of your argument. What it actually says: "Crimea’s pro-Russian parliamentarians voted behind closed doors on a declaration of intention to favour independence from Ukraine". An intention to do something is much different than having actually done something. Or take a look at "The Crimean parliament voted Tuesday that the Black Sea peninsula will declare itself an independent state if its residents agree to split off from Ukraine". Have you read the declaration yet (archived version)?. TDL (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

My reading is also that they haven't declared independence (yet?). Let's see what the future holds, but not reasons to be ahead of it on wikipedia.. L.tak (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Should we request page protection without Crimea until things quiet down? Ladril (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this is just one page out of many. A page with two separate Crimean entries now, I might add. CMD (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and requested full protection. Ladril (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

FWIW I agree that it does not belong. Suggest that those that want it come here with sources rather than repeatedly readding it. Kahastok talk 21:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should not add Crimea at this time and should wait for further developments. The map needs to be changed back as well. Crimea is still highlighted in red. Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone recently put it back into the map. I propose we add Scotland and Catalonia too; after all, they're just as "independent" as the nonexistant Republic of Crimea. Kiralexis (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia has recognised independent Crimean state: Подписан Указ о признании Республики Крым. Aotearoa (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is clearly (for now and independent sovereign state. Whether it will remain so (akin to Cook Islands/New Zealand?) or become part of Russia is much less clear!Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

We shall see by later in this week what may come about: [28] That-Vela-Fella (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Is Crimea still a state? Putin has signed law on incorporation Crimea and Sevastopol [29], which came in force since today. Maybe Crimea should be delisted? Aotearoa (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• The law has to pass through the Russian constitutional court and then the parliament. It'll take another few days, but probably not many. CMD (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• But the article 1 said: "Республика Крым считается принятой в Российскую Федерацию с даты подписания настоящего Договора." (The Republic of Crimea is included into the Russian Federation from the date of signature of this argreement). Aotearoa (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• It does, but the BBC notes it must pass the court and parliament, and rt.com also notes ratification must occur. It's all formalities, but formalities must be observed. CMD (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it is being provisionally applied pending ratification? TDL (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia have to be consequent. But now we have article Republic of Crimea about territorial unit of Russian Federation, article Republic of Crimea (country) (where is stated “was a short-lived, partially recognized sovereign state” and in the infobox: “Accession to Russia March 18, 2014”), and on the other hand this article where Crimea is still listed as state… Aotearoa (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

We also had pages which for a week were lying to our readers and saying Crimea had said it was independent from 11 March when it hadn't, and this was being ferociously defended by some users. Dealing with this using formal wiki procedures takes a great deal of time, by which point events will have moved on and the discussion will be irrelevant. You're welcome to try fixing the other pages, but at least this one page is correct. CMD (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Kazakhstan needs to be added to the list of nations that has recognized the Rep. of Crimea. user talk:Rutherfordium7 http://mfa.gov.kz/en/#!/news/article/13803 — Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That source doesn't say that Kazakhstan recognizes Crimea as a sovereign state. It says they view the referendum as "a free expression" and Russia's annexation "is regarded with understanding". TDL (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced by any of the sources that purportedly show recognition of Crimea as a state (bar the ones about Russia of course). They mostly seem to say the referendum was A-OK, which is a different matter. I also don't see why they'd bother, as the new Republic's first act was to ask for annexation. CMD (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

According to Al Jazeera [30], the document will have its final ratification tomorrow (Friday) and be signed again on Tuesday. I am unsure however which step is the final one, as Al Jazeera also says it goes into force upon the ratification. CMD (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

RT [31] says "Crimea’s incorporation into the Russian Federation will be concluded on Friday", presumably there'll be sources confirming tomorrow then. CMD (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank goodness. I'll be happy when this disaster is over. It's making wikipedia look like a disgrace. TDL (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Incredible inconsistency across Wikipedia here. If this article is to include Crimea, then Republic of Crimea (country) must be rewritten as a present entity, and there can be no mention of Crimea under Republics of Russia, among other changes. Wikipedia cannot be a source of information unless it is internally consistent. Kevin McE (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should be consistent, but it's more important that we are correct than that we are internally consistent. Unfortunately, a large number of users have hijacked wikipedia over this issue and have been spreading falsehoods on dozens of articles based on their misunderstanding of sources. (Just look at the start of this thread: editors were claiming that Crimea had declared independence and should be added [with some edit warring to include it] a week before Crimea actually declared independence. Now the same editors are edit warring to remove it before there are any sources that say that the annexation has formally taken place.) Even when they are informed that these edits are controversial, they continue making them without consensus in an attempt to make the issue WP:FAITACCOMPLI. I, and many others, don't have the time nor the motivation to argue with partisans and clean up their mess on dozens of articles. Especially so since this issue is going to resolve itself in a few weeks tops. But at the very least we can keep this article accurate. If there are sources that say that the annexation has taken place then of course they should be removed. But all the sources I have read have said the opposite. TDL (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The truth cannot be self-contradictory, so correctness necessitates consistency. Having the true state of affairs here is meaningless if the more directly apposite articles state the contrary. If there is no interest in pooling knowledge to achieve something reliable, and if Wikipedia's 'information' is not consistent it cannot be reliable, then there is no point in insisting on any particular interpretation of the sources on any one page. Centralised discussion desperately needed. Kevin McE (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course, but consistency does not necessitate correctness. My point was that we shouldn't introduce errors here simply because other crap exists, even if others are persistent in their addition of these errors on other pages, yet people keep making such WP:CIRCULAR arguments. Removing Crimea from this list simply to be consistent with Republic of Crimea (country) is just such an argument. Unfortunately, wikipedia is the wild west of encyclopedias and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Once this whole dirt storm calms down in a few weeks it will be a lot easier to clean up the mess. Right now it's a bit like trying to herd cats.

A discussion on Crimea's status has been taking place here for quite some time, which I and others have attempted to direct users to ([32], Commons:File:Limited recognition.png), though if you'd like to initiate a centralized discussion elsewhere that's fine with me. I find the sources presented above by CMD to be quite convincing that Crimea is not yet formally part of Russia. The most recent update is: "The Upper House of the Russian Parliament – the Federation Council – is scheduled to vote on the Russia-Crimea union treaty on Friday" and it "will come into force after ratification by the parliament". Do you disagree with this interpretation? Why? Do you have any sources to the contrary? TDL (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The upper house has unanimously voted to accept Crimea and amend the Russian constitution with regards to Crimea. Presumably that's it then? I don't see any indication we need to wait for Tuesday's signature. CMD (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC) [33] Apparently Russian law acts retroactively to the 18th. Nothing here mentioning a final signing either. I'm going to remove based upon this. CMD (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And what about Crimean parliament and Sevastopol City Council? Have they voted on ratification? There are two side of this agreement and ratification will be finished after voting in the Peninsula. Aotearoa (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure if that's necessary or not. But according to sources "Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday signed legislation to complete the annexation of Crimea". So it seems that it is completed. TDL (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hamas

Should we include Hamas on this list, as an entity that controls territory and claims statehood (as the Palestinian state)? After all, its a case similar to the ROC/PRC, where both Fatah and Hamas control territory, populations, etc. but one is recognized as the legitimate government of Palestine, while the other is not... --HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't use one case to inform us about another case - we should use sources to drive us. The ROC/PRC situation, as is now, was only really established after 50 years of the two governments being variously recognised as the one legitimate government China by different bodies. If we have reliable, verifiable and independent sources describing Hamas/Gaza Strip as a separate state then we can go for it. However, as far as I know, Hamas/Gaza Strip does not claim to be a state, and no-one describes them as such. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It makes sense to have a section on the Gaza strip. The declarative definition of a state (from the main entry) is that it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. The first three are met; the only question relates to the fourth. Hamas negotiates with other states all the time, but hasn't established or received embassies. Does it have the capacity to do so? Probably -- after all, Hamas claims to be the rightful government of all Palestine.

The real reason to insert a discussion on the Gaza Strip, though, is practical: if there's nothing at all about it in the entry, readers are going to think it was forgotten about. So at the very least there should be a discussion of why it doesn't belong. Pugnaciousignatius (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

People's Republic of Donetsk

Independence was declared today. No information if it control any area outside the local council building. Aotearoa (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Pro-Russian protesters seized official buildings in the eastern cities of Kharkiv, Luhansk and Donetsk on Sunday night, demanding that referendums be held on whether to join Russia like the one that preceded Moscow's takeover of Crimea." Seems like they have some sort of control? You can also find pictures of people parading their independence in Donetsk. [Soffredo] 13:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears they only control some state buildings, whereas Ukraine has enough power to control access to the cities. CMD (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Even RT says it's just activists in control the council building. CMD (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see Talk:List of sovereign states#Donetsk People's Republic - it's easier to have one discussion! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be added to unrecognized states. It declared its independence...Crimea was also added, even though eventually acceded to Russia. It is not known what will happen next and it should be considered an unrecognized state, for the time being. Also Donetsk was added to the map, but yet when I added it to the list, it was removed? Viller the Great (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have decided to change this because clearly this "republic" had no control of anything besides a building, and it is very likely that Ukraine will stay the way it is now (without Crimea), and not splinter into any other countries. Mainland Ukraine favors keeping the union. I suggest that this article and the Kharkov "republic" be merged into 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. Viller the Great (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Situation changed, Ukraine failed to overtake the territory, referendum called, it is a serious state! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.221.171 (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

One militant group controlling one city, declares independence. That does not create a state much less result in independence. Read the section on excluded entities, i.e. "Those areas undergoing current civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession, regardless of temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria (by having control over permanently populated territory or 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 rump states have emerged yet".Royalcourtier (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Limited

What exactly is the definition of "limited"? Kosovo and Palestine are recognized by over 100 UN members. Surely that isn't "limited" recognition? The Wikipedia article on Palestine calls it "a sovereign state in the Levant that is recognized by the United Nations". One article is wrong - they cannot both be right.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes they can, it depends how you interpret the semantics. Armenia is on this list, and it has one detractor, with no claims. CMD (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

In this instance, it means 'not complete/not total'. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

New Russia?

Federal States of New Russia has now been declared. I hate to start a new round of arguing, but this has to be looked at.—SPESH531Other 20:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Federal States of Novorossiya

Danlaycock In what way do the Federal States of Novorossiya not meet the inclusion criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBCPO1 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says that it is a state according to the declarative theory?

Wikipedia should never be the first independent source to conclude to a state exists. These group's say-so is insufficient unless backed by appropriate independent sourcing. Kahastok talk 15:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

"The rebels, who have declared two sprawling regions independent, have said they wouldn't allow the vote, which they described as an election in "a neighboring country.""
"While turnout was reported to be unusually high in most regions, separatists who have proclaimed an independent republic of Novorossiya (New Russia) and terrorised election organisers blocked voting in the bulk of the eastern Donbass region."
Donetsk, Lugansk republics unite in “Novorossiya” state "“We do not recognise the president and parliament of Ukraine. The Donetsk and Lugansk republics are independent states. We will recognise a government of a newly-elected president if they (the Kiev authorities) recognise the republics’ independence,” he said.
“They should immediately withdraw troops from our republics and stop any military actions,” Gubarev added."

Just a few sources —SPESH531Other 17:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources that show Ukraine has military in the area and the ability to get election organisers into some of it too. Not sources that say Novorossiya fits the declarative theory. CMD (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

According to declarative theory, a state must "1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states." The Federal States of Novorossiya: 1) Have a defined territory (The Donetsk and Lugansk Oblasts) 2) Have a permanent population (They don't seem to be moving anywhere else...) 3) Have a government (People's Governor Pavel Gubarev, Prime Minister Alexander Boroday, Commander in Chief Igor Girkin) 4) Have a capacity to enter into relations with other states (The government has the ability to interact with other governments.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.159.164 (talk)

If the case is as clear as you claim, it should be trivial to find sources that make it. Do you have one? Kahastok talk 21:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

For example, if I were to declare my own country, news reports quoting me saying that "We do not recognise X authority. The Trackratte Republic is an independent state" does not make it a reliable source for anything except that group A thinks that they are an independent country. A reliable source stating that X is an independent state as per the declarative theory is something completely different. trackratte (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Which part of my statement do you disagree with? 1,2,3, or 4? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.159.164 (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of whether we agree or disagree with your opinion, it is a question of whether you can WP:PROVEIT. Show us sources that explicitly say that it meets the declarative theory of statehood. If you are trying to deduce this point-by-point then you are conducing your own original research into the matter. TDL (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• According to Lugansk authorities Lugansk is still independent state, while Novorossiya is the confederation of independent states (simillar to Commonwealth of Independent States or Union State of Russia and Belarus). Aotearoa (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Constitutive theory - UN Bias in article

The constitutive theory of statehood has no requirement that recognition be by a UN member state in order for an entity to be considered a state, rather merely that recognition be by any other state. The requirement that recognition be from a UN member for a state to be listed via the constitutive theory on this and associated pages is biased towards a UN point of view and does not reflect the actual constitutive theory of statehood. As the criterion for inclusion under the criterea currently stand, it is unsourced synthesis and should be modified to reflect the actual theory.XavierGreen (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to complain about the current wording, but unfortunately "recognition be by any other state" entirely misses the complexity of the issue, that being that the definition is recursive. To determine if some entity (say A) is a state we need to know if the entity that recognized it (say B) is a state. And to determine if B is a state then we need to determine if the entity that recognized it (say C) is a state. The definition is logically impossible to implement unless we first choose a set of entities which are known to be states. To these state we use the CTS to determine what other things are states by checking to see if they are recognized by a "known state". So basically the premise of the article is that "all UN members are known to be states" and then checks to see what other entities are states due to recognition by a "known state". What alternative set of "known states" do you propose to use that has less "bias"?

Then to question becomes, do we allow for "chained recognitions". So for example, if Kosovo recognizes Somaliland, and Somaliland recognizes ISIS, and ISIS recognizes the Republic of Lakotah, and Lakotah recognizes the Principality of Sealand, and Sealand recognizes the Conch Republic, and the Conch Republic recognizes Westarctica, and Westarctica recognizes my bathroom (which I just declared independent) do you think that we should include all of these entities? Under your interpretation, each of these entities are a state and we would be forced to include them. If you agree that these "chained" recognized non-states shouldn't be included, then please propose alternative wording that would not allow such scenario. TDL (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes i do, as you often have told me in regards to the declarative theory it is not for us to interpret the theory, the theory itself does not make any mention of the united nations as being a requirement. The criteria as currently implemented are biased in favor of the UN. For example if Vatican City recognized the Republic of West Papua under the current criteria, west papua would not be included however if Vanuatu did it would be included. The page's ban on micro-states would prevent the majority of the entities you mention from being listed.XavierGreen (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You will notice if you read the article that it makes no claim to be listing states which meet the CTS. What it actually claims to be listing are the states which are recognized by a UN member state. That is precisely so that we don't have to interpret the CTS for each and every proposed entity. I agree that the current wording isn't perfect, but you have once again dodged the issue. What you are proposing is a logical impossibility. (See recursive definition for an explanation for the basic logic behind this.) Saying "widgets are things that look like other widgets" is not enough to define what a widget is: you need a sample widget to compare to other proposed widgets. We MUST specify a set of known states (or a "base case" as the wiki article terms it). What alternative set are you proposing to use?

And no, the ban on micronations would not keep them out, since as per the first sentence of the article they are "an entity that claims to be an independent nation or state but is not officially recognized by world governments". Once it becomse recognized it is now a microstate like the Vatican City for example. TDL (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with you on this. But would suggest that it may help focus future discussion in one place if we changed the inclusion criteria to something like:

The entries included in this list are all those that meet the criteria outlined for the list of sovereign states, that are not recognised by at least one UN member state.

This would make it clear that the two are intended to be the same and avoid any future issue of states being allowed by one rule and not the other. WP:SELFREF occurred to me, but it does not apply in this case. Kahastok talk 17:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk meets declartive theory criteria

The Donetsk People's Republic now controls the whole city of Slovyansk. As such it now meets the criteria to be considered a sovereign state under the declarative theory of statehood. See sources here, [[34]],[[35]], [[36]],[[37]].XavierGreen (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Note - moved my own comment to Talk:List of sovereign states#Donetsk meets criteria via declarative theory. Suggest that one location is appropriate. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

One militant group occupying one city, and declaring the entire region independent does not meet the definition of independence.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A single city is enough territory to maintain an independent state. See city-state.XavierGreen (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - the Vatican is even less than this! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

None of those sources state that Donetsk is an independent state. trackratte (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope. They don't. And it'd be a pretty important source to have if we were going to include it. Kahastok talk 17:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In the DPR problem is that we don’t know what it control. Media reports that they control same cities and towns, but in other hand in these cities and towns offices subordinates to the Ukrainian Government are still operate. On the other hand in some areas under control of Ukrainian forces DRP is still operate. In Donetsk (and Lugansk) we have an overlapping control of both sides of this conflict – only certain places (such buildings) in cities and towns are de facto controlled by one side (DPR or (pro-)Ukrainian authorities), and all other areas are de facto uncontrolled. Aotearoa (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't really care either way, as I have no emotional or personal stake. However, this is still a Wikipedia article, and the normal procedures and policies apply. If we have a source (such as a news article) stating that Doonetsk is an independent state, then it can be placed in the article suggesting that it may be an independent state. For it to be presented within the article as an undisputed fact, then one or more reliable sources must be included to demonstrate this fact, ie academic and official sources. If precisely zero sources explicitly mention Donetsk as an independent state (using the declarative theory or not), then it does not warrant any mention. Our job here is to present fact from outside sources, not to present our own original research. trackratte (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

i would agree with Xavier that at this point this "DPR" does meet our criteria for inclusion, however the situation is far from stable. In the past, when a situation has been fluid we have held back on inclusion and this case should follow that trend. If by the end of the month little has changed, I would think we'd have to take a hard look at inclusion. Outback the koala (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

South Ossetia 18.6.2014 recognized Donetsk People's Republic as independent state. Jan CZ (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I get a 404 error. Regardless, South Ossetia is not a UN member state as required by the criteria. Kahastok talk 20:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

New source about recognition from SO. Of course that SO is not UN member and this is not key info for result. Jan CZ (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

South Ossetia nas recognised Lugansk PR (not Donietsk PR), and Lugansk should be listed - Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria are listed despite lack od recognition of any UN member. Aotearoa (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Those three meet the other rule (declarative theory) based on appropriate expert sources. Luhansk doesn't meet either rule. Kahastok talk 21:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Question

Why is the Lugansk People's Republic listed, but not the Donetsk People's Republic (or ISIS)? It doesn't seem to fit the criteria (S. Ossetia isn't a UN member-state).

Because people keep on adding it, even though it fails the criteria, and despite the very big message at the top of the edit window asking them not to add it if it fails the criteria. As to why they keep on adding it, I don't know. You'd have to ask them that. Kahastok talk 10:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Republic of West Papua meets Constitutive Theory

The Republic of West Papua meets the constitutive theory of statehood as it is recognized by Vanuatu. As such i have added it to the page, supported by sources.XavierGreen (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Do they have control of there any of the territory it claims?—SPESH531Other 02:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

They may control some villages in the highlands, but do not do so openly. Occasionally the OPM will openly seize villages and hold them briefly. Regardless, control does not matter in this instance because the Constitutive theory only requires recognition by another state and nothing more.XavierGreen (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

So technically, in this case, on a map, you can color West Papua separate from Indonesia?—SPESH531Other 03:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The map on this page depicts defacto control, since West Papua has no open defacto control that i am aware of it should be distinguished in some other manner. Perhaps as a dot like axis occupied territories are indicated on this map Participants_in_World_War_II#mediaviewer/File:WWII.png. Or alternatively a scheme can be created where hashed areas depict claimed but not controlled zones.XavierGreen (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There may be some merit to this, but given that it is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, we need solid evidence before adding West Paupa. I've spent some time looking for sources but have found nothing convincing. Currently there is only one source which seems to be poorly researched, as the sentence used to verify the claim ("Of 197 UN members, Vanuatu alone recognizes West Papua as a separate country") contains a glaring error (there are only 193 UN members.) This speaks only of potential future recognition ("The bill committed Vanuatu to recognize West Papua’s independence"). The bill in question is the Wantok Blong Yumi Bill. It is described as "Vanuatu’s Parliament specifically ordered its leaders to: 1. Sponsor and pass a motion in national Parliament officially declaring that Vanuatu’s foreign policy is to support the achievement of the independence of West Papua." (See also [38].) Is there any evidence that this actually happened? I've looked around (including through all of [39]) and found nothing. This says they "back West Papua as a self-governing nation", which is something entirely different than a sovereign state. This and this say a Dec 2011 agreement with Indonesia "recognizes Indonesian sovereignty over West Papua".

This would be rather big news if it happened, so I'm not convinced that a single passing mention in a poor quality article is enough to support such a significant conclusion. I'm going to remove West Paupa pending the discovery of more convincing sources or a consensus on the talk page. TDL (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I posted a second source that stated the bill passed. And the article for the bill provides sources stating that it passed and that the It was rather big news when it happened, and has been a matter of controversy in Melanesian political matters. For example, Vanuatu regularly boycotts the Melanesian Spearhead Group because it refuses to admitt a West Papuan liberation organization as a full member. [[40]] The Vanuatuan government regularly lobbys on behalf of West Papua, and the issue is a major factor in elections in Vanuatu. The government scrapped the agreement with indonesia you mentioned and fully supports independence of West Papua. [[41]]. The West Papuan recognition bill was never recinded and is still law.XavierGreen (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Another source stating the bill passed can be found here. [[42]]XavierGreen (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you read my post? I'm aware that the Wantok Blong Yumi Bill was passed. However, that bill only said "Vanuatu’s Parliament specifically ordered its leaders to: 1. Sponsor and pass a motion in national Parliament officially declaring that Vanuatu’s foreign policy is to support the achievement of the independence of West Papua." It didn't recognized West Paupa, it called for the government to support West Paupa independence in the future. Those are different things. Is there any evidence that Vanuatu's leaders ever followed through with this? (The rest of your post is irrelevant to the question of whether Vanuatu recognizes West Paupa. "Supports independence" isn't the same things as "recognizes sovereignty".) TDL (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk part 100 (or so)

@Soffredo: You are trying to force Donetsk and Luhansk into this list on the basis that they are "recognised as a state by at least one UN member state", the "UN member state" in question being South Ossetia.

Except that South Ossetia is not in fact a UN member state. And it's difficult to believe that you do not know that. In any case, there is an exclusion for areas "undergoing current civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession, regardless of temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria... where the conflict is still in its active phase". Donetsk and Luhansk would fall quite clearly into this category.

Please stop pushing entities into these lists unless you can demonstrate that they actually meet the inclusion criteria. That goes particularly when they fall into categories that are explicitly excluded in the article. Kahastok talk 20:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

They certainly would not fall under "current civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession", they claim to be independent states not an alternative government to ukraine. As such they would not be excluded under that bullet. Somaliland has actively been in conflict since it declared independence and is listed here for example, because it doesnt claim to be somalia, it claims to be a different state with different borders ect.XavierGreen (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The rule doesn't apply to Somaliland because the situation there has been relatively stable. Somaliland has existed separate for Somalia for decades on end. This is not the case of Luhansk and Donetsk. Even if we accepted that these were totally separate from Ukraine (and I do not), then there are "current civil wars" or "other situations with problems over government succession" on the territories of each supposed state.

But in this case it does not make any difference because there is no "temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria" demonstrated in either case. Unless you have evidence that South Ossetia has joined the UN? Kahastok talk 14:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The situation in Somaliland is not stable, it is constantly at war with Puntland over the eastern portion of its territory and with federalist groups over the entirety of its territory. The "current civil wars" or "other situations with problems over government succession" is only in the context of alternative governments, and was added specifically in relation to the Libyan Civil War. It applies only in that context, IE the ROC, Syria, ect not in the instance of a break away seperatist government that does not claim to be the successor to a government already in place.XavierGreen (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You draw an inference that I do not find in the rule, so I do not accept your interpretation. It seems clear to me that it applies to all civil wars, regardless of their nature, so long as "the conflict is still in its active phase, the situation is too rapidly changing and no relatively stable rump states have emerged yet" - which is the case in eastern Ukraine today, and was the case in eastern Libya during their civil war, but cannot credibly fit the situation in Somaliland today.

But there's no point in having this argument because it doesn't make a jot of difference. Even if I accepted all of your points on this, the result would still be that both Donetsk and Luhansk would be excluded, because they fail the inclusion criteria. Kahastok talk 17:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The rule clearly says that it applies in situation of government succession problems. And if you look back into the archive talk page history on the list of sovereign states page, you clearly will see the context in which the rule was applied. It was put into place to prevent the Libyan Transitional Government from qualifying for inclusion on the page, which was a competing government controlling territory and claiming to be the legitimate government of all Libya. The "rump states" language was included so that a competing government that does not claim to be an different state but no longer is actively in conflict (ie Taiwan) would be included.XavierGreen (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No. Read the exclusion rule again. What it actually says is "those areas undergoing current civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession" are excluded. So areas in civil war are excluded whether there is problem over government succession or not. That's precisely what the "and" is for. And the context under which the rule was adopted is irrelevant to the discussion of what the rule actually says. It was specifically written to apply more generally than to just the situation in Libya. If you thought it should have been written less generally then you should have objected when it was implemented. Regardless, as Kahastok says this entire debate is pointless because there is no evidence of "temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria". TDL (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel that Donetsk and Luhansk should be included, WP:RS show that another non UN member South Odessa has recognized these states has independent. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you guys look below please elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 21:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Read the article. It specifically says that states must be "recognised as a state by at least one UN member state". Recognition by a non-UN member by definition is not enough. TDL (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Then why do we have a section called "Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That is for states that have qualified through the other clause: "satisfy the declarative theory of statehood". And as you argued below, at present it is just just the opinion of a bunch of wikipedia editors that either of these entities meet this criteria as no sources have been provided. TDL (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No sources have been provided though for this "Declarative theory" either. There is also the Constitutive theory which is properly sourced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

In addition the two theories compete against one another, so it is not as clear cut.[43]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course they compete against each other, which is precisely why we allow a state to be listed provided that satisfy one of the criteria. But to date, you nor anyone else has provided any sources to show that either of these entities meet either criteria. Adding a few random unrelated links in the reference column does not make it properly sourced. The constitutive theory clause says that states must be "recognised as a state by at least one UN member state". Can you show me a single source saying they have been recognized by a UN member state? If not, then by the definitions of this article they clearly do not belong, no matter how desperate some are to edit war them in. TDL (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Added one more point in the criteria for inclusion

Since The Islamic State / the new Islamic caliphate defies the standards used until now for what a recogniseble state is, then I've found it relevant to add a third point to which limited recognised states that may be included on the List of states with limited recognition. The Islamic State don't recognise western or international law - only islamic sharia law. Neither do they recognise any other states as islamic states. In their wiev there is only one Islamic State - The Caliphate. Any other current states with a muslim population should dissolve themselves and become a part of the caliphate. Wheter The Islamic State is ready for having diplomatic relations with none-islamic countries is unclear, and is yet to be seen. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan

Latest news is that Iraqi Kurdistan is planning a declaration of independence. They've been operating as a state for years now, so I think it merits inclusion here. It's certainly closer to a state than any of those Russian puppets in eastern Ukraine are. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

They'll merit an entry here when they actually declare independence, not before that point. That said, I've already seen sources calling it a quasi-state, so it should be a shoo-in. CMD (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there are already sources saying they meet the declarative theory (ie Packard, Matthew (2013). "Earning Independence in Iraqi Kurdistan Notes & Comments". Temple International and Comparative Law Journal. Kurdistan has already satisfied the criteria for statehood according to the Montevideo Convention ... Kurdistan satisfies the requirements for statehood under customary international law.) so I don't foresee any dispute about adding them if they declare independence. TDL (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It can't meet the declarative theory unless it declares independence.XavierGreen (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ego White Tray:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @Danlaycock: in direct relation to this thread, I would like to invite you to comment at RfC proposal on Iraqi Kurdistan's level of autonomy, essentially resolving whether Iraqi Kurdistan should or shouldn't be added to the "other dependent territories" under Asia topic. This is not considering Iraqi Kurdistan independent at all, but i suggest that it might be a case of exceptional autonomy, thus may be included in "dependent territories".GreyShark (dibra) 13:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

New Source on ISIS de facto "Statehood"

The following BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28222872 has several interesting quotes on ISIS's claim to statehood:

"Which leaves the prospect of a violent, extremist, well-armed, well-funded and religiously intolerant militia becoming a permanent part of the Middle East landscape, a sort of de facto "jihadistan"."

"To succeed as a viable state, let alone as a transnational "caliphate", Isis will need access to oil and water.

It has both. In Syria its forces control the oil-producing region around Deir Az-zour, including Syria's largest oilfield at al-Omar"

Do these quotes indicate that we now have a reliable source for listing this terrorist group as a state with no recognition, or are these quotes to ambiguous? --69.91.176.63 (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

ISIL/DNR/LNR Poll

I've started a poll at the talk page for List of sovereign states. You can find the poll here. We're discussing the inclusion of the Islamic State, the Donetsk People's Republic, and the Lugansk People's Republic. [Soffredo] 18:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant

Hi there. Please check out my section in the talk page of ISIL. They claim lands in Iraq and Syria.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 16:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been discussed several times before. On this list, we need evidence either of diplomatic recognition by a UN member, or that some outside authority or reliable source considers it a state according to the declarative theory of statehood. In the latter case, that means that the source has to actually apply the theory - Wikipedians' interpretations of whether the theory is met or not do not count. Kahastok talk 17:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks mate, you've enlightened me.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 18:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This expert opinion definitivly says it's an unrecognized state. “It also runs the equivalent of a state. It has all the trappings of a state, just not an internationally recognized one.” I found another article where the theory is applied and the decision is "unlike Al-Qaeda, ISIS is on its way to controlling a quasi-state, exercising de facto sovereignty over a territory, even if unrecognized by the international community." So, it looks like it's a little premature to declare it a state, however it looks like that's what is happening. The last condition of "declarative statehood" is having relations with other countries. That's yet to be seen. - Technophant (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

if Azawad and Bangsamoro Republik where included in the list then ISIS deserve it more.3bdulelah (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This article (which apparently now needs a log-in) also indicates that ISIS is becoming at least a quasi-state. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I would note, that war is a political relatiohship between countries and thus can count as satisfying the capacity to enter relations criterion.XavierGreen (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The opening line of our entry on war states that "War is an organized and often prolonged conflict that is carried out by states or non-state actors." For what it's worth, though, I wouldn't oppose this being added. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Should ISIS be added to the "Non-UN member states not recognised by any state" section? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

<Reduce indent> A useful list of ISIS related sources here at Progressive Geographies. The summary suggests that some scholars are beginning to recognize it as a state. We have multiple independent sources - for me this is one to add. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is an article (in Arabic) by France 24 which says that " ISIS has "the elements and resources of a real state" 3bdulelah (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Given how many sources there are, I don't why it shouldn't be added. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that ISIS should definitely be mentioned in the article at least. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Do any of the sources mention the declarative theory of statehood or the Montevideo Convention? I haven't seen it in any of them, but I may have missed it? I think we should be aiming for something more explicit than a blog saying "all the trappings of statehood" (even if it's the blog of the Washington Post's Beirut bureau chief). The sources seem to say "quasi-state", not "state". Kahastok talk 20:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

"Quasi-state" is synonymous with our "state with limited recognition". It's a term often used to describe the entities listed on this page. No-one's discussing the Montevideo convention in those words, but they are saying it is providing some form of internal governance. Not much detail yet that I've seen, so I'm still not sure on this addition, but the sourcing is definitely growing stronger. CMD (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

While I concur that the sources are starting to move towards where we need them, most are still hedging their claims with qualifications like "equivalent of a state" or "on its way to". There is WP:NODEADLINE, so we should hold off adding them until there are sources which make clear, concrete conclusions on their statehood. It's better to be a bit slow than to be early and wrong. TDL (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, we're getting nearer, but aren't there yet. I would note that I find it difficult to see we can say that a state satisfies the declarative theory, without a source that says so (or at least mentions Montevideo). With such a source we can be absolutely clear that the author has considered the point in terms of the declarative theory. Kahastok talk 17:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Why then Azawad and Bangsamoro Republik where added without a reliable source considers it a state according to the declarative theory of statehood? + can u give a "reliable source" that consider Nagorno-Karabakh Republic a state according to that theory because I couldn't find one for the three republics.3bdulelah (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The current inclusion criteria were only implemented in September 2013. You can see the proposal that led to them at Talk:List_of_states_with_limited_recognition/Archive_10#On_the_Criteria and Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Archive_11#Proposal_to_change_the_inclusion_criteria. Both Azawad and Bangsamoro were only included prior to the rewording of the inclusion criteria.

As for sources, there is one in the article: Ker-Lindsay, James (2012). The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States. Oxford University Press. p. 53. ...there are three other territories that have unilaterally declared independence and are generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria for statehood but have not been recognized by any states: Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland. TDL (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

ISIL was declared before September 2013 and it wasn't included at that time 3bdulelah (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

When ISIL was originally declared as the ISI it was as an alternative government to that of the iraqi government and would not have qualified for the list even if it controlled territory, once it changed to ISIS it expanded its claimed territory to most of syria as well as iraq and became a different state than that of iraq since it claims both syria and iraq.XavierGreen (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be considered as alternative government if it was claiming the hole Iraqi territory but as u know they only claimed Arab Sunni territory 3bdulelah (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The end of the article explicitly excludes state that are in a state of civil war. ISIL clearly is in this category and can be excluded on this argument. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The civil war is in Syria and Iraq not in ISIL which claim some parts of Iraq and Syria. Somalia is in civil war but Somaliland is included because the war is in all Somalia not only in Somaliland. 3bdulelah (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Somaliland doesn't get caught by that exception because it has been stable for decades on end. It is not credible to say that "the conflict is still in its active phase, the situation is too rapidly changing and no relatively stable rump states have emerged yet" in the case of Somaliland. It is certainly credible to say that with respect to ISIS at present - your claim that ISIS is not in any way involved in the crises in Syria and Iraq is not remotely tenable.

We can go further than that, though, Somaliland has been widely described as an example of an unrecognised state by academics. At present it is pretty much the archetypal example. We have academic evidence applying the declarative theory explicitly to Somaliland and finding that it is met. At present, we do not yet have the evidence that there is even a "temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria" that would make it make a difference. Kahastok talk 14:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I take it that this isn't enough to meet the criteria. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Not unless the ISIS still exists after the region is stabilized=. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've done a search for webpages discussing the Montevideo Convention and ISIS. Here's two opinions:

• Human Rights in Ireland: Isis, the Caliphate and new states Jun 30, 2014

Conclusion; On conditions 1 and 2, claimed but uncertain. "While there are no temporal requirements for control of population or territory (emphasis added) when these are combined with the other two elements of Montevideo some form of long-term governance does appear necessary." On claim 3, government "Currently it is unclear as to whether Isis would meet such a standard." On claim 4, relations, "For Isis this criteria does appear lacking if social media is discounted."

• International Law Prof Blog New Islamic State in Middle East? - June 30, 2014

Conclusion - On condition 1 and 2: "However, given the existing states' recognized political boundaries, massive refugee flows in and out of the various areas of this region, and the ongoing fighting over territory between ISIS and the Iraqi army, among other factors, it certainly cannot be said that the new caliphate has a permanent population or a defined territory." On condition 3 and 4: "Its ability to function effectively as a government, rather than a militant group, and to engage in relations with other states remains to be seen."

The Islamic State does seem to be effectively forming a governing body and beginning to form relations with other states however. In this article by Daily Star states “In Raqqa, ISIS has offices for everything you can imagine: health, education, security, Islamic aid, tribal relations management, and even an embassy of the emirate of Aleppo.” I think it's just a matter of time until the experts acknowledge that the conditions are met. - Technophant (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

One thing nobody has brought up, is that it is too early to show a permanent population, which is required in the declarative theory of statehood. There are thousands of people fleeing, and I think evidence of large groups of civilians accepting them as a government over a given period of time, as has happened in Somaliland is one of the most important pieces. There are no stable/peaceful civilian areas in the IS right now.Pangeanempire (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If consensus does turn out against ISIL inclusion, would it be appropriate to list it in the excluded entities section? Ladril (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

North Sentinel Island

Hi guys,

I think we should add North Sentinel as an unrecognised de facto state to this list. May be it's a very "primitive model of state", but they fulfil all points in the declarative theory. We should not forget that they have full control (or sovereignty) in both their internal affairs and territory. Yes India, if wanted, could easily invade that area. But that island has never been invaded in history. The same people have been living there for millennia, with their own administration, their own warriors guarding the borders etc. Let me elaborate:

1. They do have a defined territory (and have been having for millennia).
   • They shoot arrows at those closing to their border, be it from land, water or air. In 2006, two fishermen were killed with arrows for fishing in their territory.
2. They do have a permanent population.
3. They have a sort of government - a government is what governs the people, right? - even if we don't know their exact way of governing...probably clan leaders' council or something.
4. They have obviously and naturally have a capacity to enter into relations with other states, even though they choose not to.

I am no expert on socio-politics. However, much-ever primitive, the locals of the North Sentinel Island seemed to me quite independent. They have an army (or group of warriors), while Andorra doesn't. They have a permanent population, while it's still debated whether ISIS has one. It has been already acknowledged that North Sentinel is de facto autonomous. So if the difference between autonomous and full sovereignty is having full control over territory, they definitely have it. So can we mention them in the article? What are your opinions guys? Thank you --Universal Life (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Two points:

1. The relevant factor is not whether we think they meet the criteria, but whether reliable sources think they meet the criteria.
2. The Sentinelese are generally considered an uncontacted people, thus explicitly excluded under the excluded entities section of the article. But we do have an article specifically on Uncontacted peoples. Kahastok talk 16:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Kahastok. About the criteria (the 4 criteria mentioned in the article). It's not opinion but fact that they meet the first two. About the last two criteria, I don't know what reliable sources say, although we could look up and search for it. It's quite possible though that many experts might not have paid attention to the sovereignty of a few hundred "primitive" people...although even if it is opined by reliable sources to be a state, may be we could mention it in the article as Mr. X, Y considers North Sentinel to be a state.

Secondly, I've read the excluded entities section you linked - and thank you for that as well - which brought up few questions to my mind. First of all, there are five things mentioned in that section.

1. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta
2. Uncontacted peoples
3. Micronations
4. Areas undergoing civil wars
5. Separatist movements and governments in exile

• I think I understand why the first one is not included but mentioned in that relevant section...It's because they don't have any territory and no declaration of state, but they have full diplomatic relationships with many countries. Is it so?
• For the second one it says that they exercise varying degrees of de facto sovereignty over the areas under their control. When I read uncontacted people and look more into it, I see that, most of them (perhaps almost all of them) have lost the territorial control that they once had. Petroleum companies, mining companies have entered their lands, contact have been made with almost all of them, roads have been constructed through their forests etc. If I'm not wrong, only the Sentinelese have remained completely out of contact. Therefore, they have full sovereignty over their territories and they deserve at least a mention in the excluded section of the article. (It's not my opinion, it's just obvious. If anyone goes and reads about all uncontacted people and the Sentinelese, any neutral person could see this difference. Some article even was saying that it's so because of India's laws and protection...And unlike micronations, the Sentinelese are not under the law of their surrounding country.)
• About the fourth one (civil wars), is that the reason the IS is excluded? Or is it because of not being sure whether they have a permanent population?
• And lastly, the fifth one brought two questions to my mind. 1) Are governments in exile accepted as states, if they have full diplomatic relationships with many governments (such as for European countries, during the Second WW). 2) (more importantly) Why "states" that don't have de facto sovereignty are sometimes accepted as states? I mean doesn't de jure comes naturally after de facto? How can we speak of a state, when in fact, there is none to begin with? One example comes to my mind is Palestinian territories - and no, it's not a politically charged question, I'm just trying to understand better the concept of state - There might be more such examples.

Sorry for the wall of text and so many questions. I'm creating a list myself here. Since my childhood, I liked to make list of countries and memorise their capitals :) Although, they keep changing.. So, I want to keep one flexible list, that I can change, as realities change :) Thanks in advance, Cheerfully --Universal Life (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel like it can't be listed for this very simple issue: We don't know if there is a single North Sentinel state. For all we know there could be multiple factions. Imagine if this were 1492 and Europeans just discovered there was this big land over here with people; would it be kosher for them to say "There is this unrecognized country of "America""? No. --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You made the point very clear. Thank you Golbez.

And about the other questions, especially of why an entity is accepted as a de jure state, when de facto doesn't have sovereignty...if anyone could inform me, I would be very happy. --Universal Life (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. I think I'd start by pointing out that the question of whether an entity is a "state" or not is quite clear in most cases (e.g. Germany, Isle of Wight), but the edges are quite blurred and require a judgement call. The question of whether a "state" exists in international law is a Big Deal, and as Wikipedia editors, policies like WP:NOR mean that we are not in a position to make those judgement calls.

That means that, even if some of us think a case is obvious according to the declarative theory, we have to wait until a reliable source reports that a state exists according to the declarative theory. Can we prove territory, population, government to our satisfaction in many cases? Sure, but that counts for nothing if we're the only ones who think that. Wikipedia shouldn't be the first source to suggest that a state exists, and shouldn't find itself in a small minority. That - the fact that there is no source that suggests that a state exists - would be the formal reason for excluding North Sentinel Island as well as ISIS and others.

The answers to your questions can be broadly be summarised by saying that our aim is to create a list that does not radically differ from those that any other neutral observer would make. Basically, all of the five points are saying the same thing - we don't include "states" that haven't been judged as such by other sources.

So:

• SMOM considers itself to be - and is recognised as - a sovereign non-state, which pretty much rules it out.
• Uncontacted peoples - as Golbez says, by definition we don't really know enough about them to comment. But they are generally treated as a separate phenomenon from sovereign states.
• Though micronations often try to make themselves look like states and frequently make self-aggrandising claims about recognition and the declarative theory, academically they are treated as a separate phenomenon and you won't generally find serious reliable sources accepting those claims. Clearly, uncontacted peoples are themselves different from micronations.
• In the case of civil wars and cases of state succession, this one was written for an old criterion and not updated (I've just done it). You frequently get situations where something resembling a state might exist during a civil war or revolution. Libya is the archetypal example - for several months we had both a Libya-Tripoli and a Libya-Benghazi, de facto distinct and independent of one another but both claiming to be government of the same Libya - but one might also cite e.g. the current situation in eastern Ukraine. Because we want a reasonably stable list, we wait until there's a reasonably stable resolution.
• The final case, again it's rather written for an older version of the criteria (I've just updated it). Remember that this is a list of states, not of governments. A government-in-exile is not a state, even it is recognised as a legitimate government of a state. As to the Palestinians, I find your example flawed as there are areas of Palestinian de facto sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza. Kahastok talk 09:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Kahastok for your nice reply and infos you gave. I also read the change you made and it makes more sense now. I also understand your point when you say as Wikipedia editors, policies like WP:NOR mean that we are not in a position to make those judgement calls, we have to wait until a reliable source reports that a state exists according to the declarative theory and Wikipedia shouldn't be the first source to suggest that a state exists, and shouldn't find itself in a small minority. However I have a sincere question. I myself, as NOT being a sociopolitician neither being a social scientist (I'm actually a biologist) have no clue whether there actually are people/academicians that sit down and write a scientific paper about the ontology of underrecognised or unrecognised entities, I mean analysing if they are indeed a state or not according to this or that concept. I would very much like to know if such papers or academicians exist indeed. If not, what are the reliable sources? Politicans or politics of different countries shouldn't be, as today unfortunately politics itself is an expression of "vested interests". And Wikipedia, with the principle of NPOV-Neutrality, should not be the voice of this or that vested interest. If I come to learn that such papers/academicians exist indeed and that even few of them are independant (not funded by politicians) I would be quite happy.

There is a second and last thing I don't understand. How come a state is a state, when they don't have their own army or when they don't control their own borders. Andorra doesn't have its own army. Their citizens pay taxes to both Spain (some religious dude in Cataluña) and France! I don't understand their independance. You said that there are areas of West Bank and Gaza with de facto sovereignty. However, it's not correct. What you mentioned is in the West Bank and what they have is autonomy, because they are demilitarised, they don't have control over any border. They have police force co-funded by Israel and the USA but that's it. Gaza de facto neither controls their territory, not the land borders, nor the sea (it didn't neither prior to the current war). Anyway, even though Andorra and Palestine's situations are far away from each other - and I don't suggest they should be excluded - I'm just trying to understand, how come a state without an army (eg. Andorra) and/or a state without actual control over their territory (eg. PA) is considered an "independent state", worthy of the name. Thanks --Universal Life (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two competing theories of statehood, discussed at Sovereign state. They are the constitutive theory (i.e. statehood is based on recogntion) and the declarative theory (i.e. statehood is based on certain criteria independent of recognition). Our list is based on either-or. Andorra is universally recognised as a sovereign state, and Palestine is widely recognised as one. That's enough for us on its own and we don't need to make the case in terms of the declarative theory.

Having military forces has never been a prerequisite to statehood. Liechtenstein abolished their forces after they famously (though possibly apocryphally) came back from campaign with more soldiers than they'd left with, having made a friend. The British and Icelanders even managed to fight a minor war over their maritime borders in the 1970s despite the Icelanders not having any military forces.

The reliable sources who most often deal with these issues are international lawyers and political scientists - whether working for governments or in academia. The international lawyers and the politicians tend to be most interested in the blurry edges, rather than the obvious cases. Kahastok talk 22:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wa State

Follow Wikipedians, should we add Wa State to the list? To me, they have fulfilled every category and I can't see any reason not to include them in the list. What are your opinions? 125.168.97.231 (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I've looked briefly, and I see no evidence that it meets the inclusion criteria for this list (i.e. sourcing that says that it meets the standard of the declarative theory of statehood, or evidence of formal diplomatic recognition by a UN member state). Kahastok talk 10:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The infobox for that article claims they declared independence in 1989 but the text doesn't support that, nor is there a source supporting it. --Golbez (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There are various rebel groups in burma with defacto independent control over territory, the United Wa State Army is one such group. While do recall reading about a Wa group that declared independence, i do not believe it was the UWSA.XavierGreen (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Bias

This list should contain also the states with effective control and ongoing conflict. The point of the list is to be informative. Heavy bias against the 3 new states with clear notability are constantly apparently removed by editors with obvious agenda. There is no reason to deny the existence of these states as entities with ongoing conflict - this is list of UNRECOGNIZED states, and effective control on ground in conflicts that takes thousands of lives (be it Ukraine or Northern Iraq/Syria) are notable cases of unrecognized (or partially recognized, in the case of Donbass) states/entities. We should not deny the elephant in the room, i.e. the most significant conflicts of the day, by taking sides and denying existence of these states even at UNRECOGNIZED list page with purpose to inform about existence of these problematic regions (and all are problematic, but these three, and especially so, are the ones where conflict is most serious). BritishProudImperialMrn (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Unrecognised means unrecognised. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

All I know is the Russian Wikipedia has Donetsk and Luhansk on the list and refuses to take it off the list, yet the English Wikipedia refuses to put it on the list, I think both Wikipedia's are heavily biased towards their national adgendas. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If ru.wiki have different standards to us then that's their business. The current consensus has been clearly expressed. If there is overwhelming new evidence to suggest that any of these organisations belong on the list, then the decision can be reconsidered. What that means is evidence either that they meet the declarative theory - i.e. that actually comes to that conclusion - or that they are recognised as a sovereign state by a UN member state. These standards are clear, neutral and are the same as they have been since well before the current war in Eastern Ukraine broke out. Kahastok talk

Er... "One side has it, the other side doesn't. Both are biased!" You've literally created a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, where no position is possible without "heavy bias". This is a binary situation, inclusion in this list or not, yet you've just said neither position can be considered neutral. --Golbez (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)