List of states with limited recognition is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Wikipedia by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The country changed the spelling of it's name to be turkiye instead of turkey to differentiate itself from the bird. This is not in the article. 126.149.239.83 (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
OPPOSE Diplomatic recognition and diplomatic relations are two separate things. Country A can still recognize Country B as a country without having diplomatic relations with Country B. 58.152.51.240 (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Taiwan doesn't recognize Somaliland as a sovereign state
Latest comment: 16 days ago11 comments7 people in discussion
Representative offices (unlike an embassy) means unofficial relations, not recognition as a sovereign state. There no official recognition of its independence. Sources provided also confirm this. -- Svito3 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Bloomberg article says "So far, only Taiwan recognizes Somaliland as a nation, despite the African region having declared its independence in 1991." [1]JSwift4911:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
"It is an official relationship in numerous respects, but not diplomatic. Put another way, the bilateral partnership is deemed official due to the signatures of two foreign ministers. On the other hand, it differs from Taiwan’s relationships with its more formal diplomatic allies."
"Somaliland’s relationship with Taiwan is based on the reality on the ground: respecting Taiwan’s sovereignty and value as a partner, while acknowledging China’s global influence. Taiwan reciprocates this sentiment by recognizing Somalia’s independence and acknowledging Somaliland as a nation based on actual circumstances." [2]JSwift4912:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of diplomacy. To be fair though Sharouser is also wrong, neither extends full diplomatic recognition to each other (which is despite its name suggesting otherwise the only kind of recognition this page is concerned with) but neither treats the other as part of another power (they aren't consulates subordiante to a head national mission, they're embassy level bodies who report directly back to the home country) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago12 comments6 people in discussion
This is just a question. I know it says "Subnational entities and regions that function as de facto independent states, with the central government exercising little or no control over their territory, but that do not explicitly claim to be independent" are not included, but the other examples (Rojava, Puntland, and Kurdistan) aren't even de facto independent, just de facto autonomous, as they must follow civil law of their sovereign nation, unlike the Wa State. Gaza is de facto independent, but arguably doesn't fit the criteria of "efficient government" as Hamas is a militant group.
The Wa State was at one point was a group primarily reliant on their military but has since established a fully de facto independent government. This can also extend to Chinland, although Chinland's diplomatic relations are severely lacking. That can't be said for the Wa State though, as they have strong diplomatic ties to China. China and the Wa State conduct relations completely outside of Burmese sovereignty.
While it is true that the Wa State has never declared independence, neither have Cook Islands or Niue. The declarative theory of statehood never lists such a thing. Actually1a2a3a (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
What we need to include it is reliable sources calling it "de facto independent" or something similar. I think the conflict in Myanmar has gone on for a long time already so there must be scholarly sources about it. Alaexis¿question?19:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Although the Wa region is part of the Union territory, it is not affected by the government's authority, so international tourists and businessmen cannot interact directly with the Wa leaders, and the Wa region is designated by the government as a prohibited area.
In any case, the Wa region government, No military intervention, Only the leaders directly govern, It is a situation where the Wa Army has fully secured the region and has full self-determination."
"Wa intellectuals, whether in Wa State, China, Myanmar or Thailand, have widely disseminated the “real” culture and image of the Wa people and defended the relative sovereignty of the Wa State."
"The Wa have rejected both the Burmese and Chinese governments, and have willingly become barbarians—the only truly independent and self-governing ethnic minority in the region. Whether living in Yunnan or Wa State, the Wa owe allegiance only to a government that no country in the world will formally recognize." Actually1a2a3a (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Existing outside of the control of the central government is not the same as claiming and/or exercising statehood. The situation in Myanmar is covered by many observers, if a proto-state is established there will be a lot of sources on the matter. CMD (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is the same as achieving statehood is said entity fulfills the rest of the criteria, which the Wa State does extremely well. The page of the Wa State already explains how China and the Wa State interact diplomatically, albeit informally.
the others mentioned as “not claiming statehood” do not have any relations with other nations besides Gaza, which arguably doesn’t have an efficient government as I’ve stated.
there are also a lot of websites in Burmese and in Chinese covering the Wa State’s sovereignty. Far more than those that cover Niue and Cook Islands’s recognition.
The case for adding them would be more convincing if we had high-quality sources calling them an "unrecognised state" or "de facto independent" or smth like that. Alaexis¿question?23:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
” Located along Myanmar’s northeastern border with China, the boundaries of the Wa State do not appear on Google maps. Officially part of the Shan State of Myanmar, in reality, it is a de-facto state governed by an insurgent army, and Myanmar’s national government and its army, the Tatmadaw, have no say in its internal affairs.”
“ Already Myanmar’s largest rebel group with an estimated 30,000 soldiers and 20,000 auxiliary troops and a sophisticated arsenal of weapons, much of it purchased from China, the announcement renewed questions about how long the Myanmar government can tolerate a de facto independent state within its borders.”
“ The concrete examples are the relationships of care between commanders, soldiers, and villagers in the Wa State of Myanmar, a de-facto state governed by an insurgent army.
Wa State has never declared independence (like Somaliland did) nor has it ever asserted that it was a sovereign country (Like Tatarstan did in 1990 and Australia did). Accordingly, it fails the declarative theory of statehood. Niue and the Cook Islands are recognized as independent by other countries, and therefore are included under the constitutive theory of statehood. If Wa state was recognized by another country as being sovereign, it too would pass the inclusion criteria despite not declaring independence. The only rebel polity in Burma to have actually declared independence was Khun Sa's Shan State Restoration Council, it controlled and held territory in the early 1990's, the Shan State Restoration Council no longer exists with a large number of its cadres surrendering along with Khun Sa himself in 1996. A rump faction led by Yawd Serk refused to surrender and rebranded themselves as Shan State Army South. I have never seen any sources which state that Shan State Army South considers itself to be an independent state or that it asserts itself to be a successor in interest to Khun Sa's "Shan State" that declared independence in 1991. No other Burmese rebel group that controls territory has actually declared itself to be sovereign or independent.XavierGreen (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
You are wrong. Kokang declared independence on 12 May 2014 with the establishment of the People's Republic of Kokang.
This page isn’t about the constitutive theory of statehood. It’s explicitly about the declarative theory of statehood. Rojava, and Puntland still follow civil law of another nation, therefore don’t fit it. Gaza lacks institutional cohesion and doesn’t have an efficient government, therefore doesn’t fit it. The Wa State fully fictions as a sovereign nation in every way, matches the criteria, and can conduct diplomatic relations. It’s a state. Actually1a2a3a (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply